On 14/11/14 04:53, Juergen Gross wrote: > > Using BUG() instead would make the code less complex. Do you really > think xen_update_mem_tables() would ever fail in a sane system? > > - set_phys_to_machine() would fail only on a memory shortage. Just > going on without adding more memory wouldn't lead to a healthy system, > I think. > - The hypervisor calls would fail only in case of parameter errors. > This should never happen, so dying seems to be the correct reaction. > > David, what do you think?
BUG() sounds fine. David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
