>>> On 08.09.17 at 08:56, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
> @@ -1843,6 +1838,14 @@ gnttab_setup_table(
> gt = d->grant_table;
> grant_write_lock(gt);
>
> + if ( unlikely(op.nr_frames > gt->max_grant_frames) )
> + {
> + gdprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Domain is limited to %d grant-table
> frames.\n",
> + gt->max_grant_frames);
%u please
> @@ -3465,6 +3471,8 @@ grant_table_create(
> /* Simple stuff. */
> percpu_rwlock_resource_init(&t->lock, grant_rwlock);
> spin_lock_init(&t->maptrack_lock);
> + t->max_grant_frames = max_grant_frames;
> + t->max_maptrack_frames = max_maptrack_frames;
Am I mistaken or are these the only uses of the two static variables
now? If so (also to prove that's the case) their definitions would
probably better be moved into this function, together with their
integer_param() invocations. The adjustments done by
gnttab_usage_init() could also go here afaict.
> @@ -3755,6 +3763,12 @@ static void gnttab_usage_print(struct domain *rd)
>
> grant_read_lock(gt);
>
> + printk("grant-table for remote domain:%5d (v%d)\n"
> + " %d frames (%d max), %d maptrack frames (%d max)\n",
> + rd->domain_id, gt->gt_version,
> + nr_grant_frames(gt), gt->max_grant_frames,
> + nr_maptrack_frames(gt), gt->max_maptrack_frames);
Various %u instances again, and Dom%d please. Also you put this
after the table header, corrupting intended output.
> @@ -3782,12 +3796,7 @@ static void gnttab_usage_print(struct domain *rd)
> status = status_entry(gt, ref);
> }
>
> - if ( first )
> - {
> - printk("grant-table for remote domain:%5d (v%d)\n",
> - rd->domain_id, gt->gt_version);
> - first = 0;
> - }
> + first = 0;
Is it useful to print the per-table information when there are no
entries at all for a domain? I think it would be better to move
what you add as well as the table header into the if() that you
delete.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
