[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Zachary Amsden wrote:
> +void __init vmi_init(void)
> +{
> +       int romsize;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Setup optional callback functions if we found the VMI ROM
> +        */
> +       if (hypervisor_found) {
> +               romsize = vmi_rom->romLength * 512;
> +               if (VROMFunc(vmi_rom, VMI_CALL_Init)) {
> +                       printk(KERN_WARNING "VMI ROM failed to initialize\n");
> +                       hypervisor_found = 0;
> +               } else {
> +                       memcpy(&__VMI_START, (char *)vmi_rom, romsize);
> +                       scan_builtin_annotations();
> +               }
> +       }
> +	if (!vmi_rom) 
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "VMI ROM not found"
> +                      " - falling back to native mode\n");
> +       else if (!hypervisor_found)
> +               printk(KERN_WARNING "VMI ROM version mismatch "
> +                      "(kernel requires version >= %d.%d) "
> +                      " - falling back to native mode\n",
> +                      VMI_API_REV_MAJOR, MIN_VMI_API_REV_MINOR);
> +}
>   
Minor nitpick.

The error logic here is somewhat confusing.  If a VMI_CALL_Init results 
in a failure, you end up with:
 VMI ROM failed to initialize
 VMI ROM version mismatch (kernel requires version >= 13.0) - falling 
back to native mode
The later error is misleading as the version may actually match.  The 
nesting here probably could be simplified to.
Regards,

Anthony Liguori


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel