>>> On 15.09.15 at 03:17, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote: >> > But looks its not better, so any idea? >> >> Did you at least make an attempt to find other examples of where >> we dynamically determine the log level to be used for a message? >> I would assume that if you did, you'd have come to >> >> printk(XENLOG_GUEST "%s" VTDPREFIX > > I didn't know this tip on Xen side and its really good. > >> " It's %s to assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u" >> " with shared RMRR at %"PRIx64" for Dom%d.\n", >> relaxed ? XENLOG_WARNING : XENLOG_ERROR, >> relaxed ? "risky" : "disallowed", >> seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn), >> rmrr->base_address, d->domain_id); >> >> pretty naturally. >> > > But I noticed my original patch is already merged into staging. So
I committed it since Kevin had acked it, and it was better than nothing. I'd still like to see the log level adjustment though... Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
