WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] paging_domctl() missing break statements?

To: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] paging_domctl() missing break statements?
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:22:29 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100217095806.GK368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4B7BC96F020000780002FC9A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 20100217095806.GK368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
/me wonders if this explains the periodic but apparently harmless
messages I often see on the console like:

(XEN) paging.c:170: paging_free_log_dirty_bitmap: used X pages for domain Y 
dirty logging

which I've never reported.

And, if not, is that message useful/meaningful to anyone or
should it be removed?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Deegan [mailto:Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:58 AM
> To: Jan Beulich
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] paging_domctl() missing break statements?
> 
> At 09:48 +0000 on 17 Feb (1266400095), Jan Beulich wrote:
> > The main switch statement in that function looks suspicious, and with
> no
> > explicit comment saying that fall-through is intended it would seem
> like
> > one or two break statements are actually missing. Comments?
> 
> Yep, looks like that was just working by blind luck.
> 
> Tim.
> 
> diff -r 560277d2fd20 xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c        Mon Feb 15 08:19:07 2010 +0000
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c        Wed Feb 17 09:56:43 2010 +0000
> @@ -717,11 +717,13 @@
>                  hap_logdirty_init(d);
>              return paging_log_dirty_enable(d);
>          }
> +        break;
> 
>      case XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_OFF:
>          if ( paging_mode_log_dirty(d) )
>              if ( (rc = paging_log_dirty_disable(d)) != 0 )
>                  return rc;
> +        break;
> 
>      case XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_CLEAN:
>      case XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_PEEK:
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>