On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 06:32 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 26.02.16 at 14:07, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > > We can argue about that being useful or not, and about it being > > (potentially) too noisy or not. I personally think it could be > > useful > > (it's XENLOG_DEBUG, after all), but I won't oppose getting rid of > > it... > > I am just not getting why you're saying "not currently running on > > pCPU0". > Oh, you're right, that was too strict - "not being allowed to run > on CPU0" would be the right description. And indeed that makes > it look not as noisy (but too much, since during suspend this is > what one has to expect would happen). > Yes, mostly on the ground that it's the intended behavior and (in that case really) temporary, I'm indeed ok silencing this on suspend.
Since it's pretty independent, I'd prefer this to be done in a separate patch, together with the resume side, as (AFAIUI) Juergen is planning to do already. Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
