>>> On 10.04.16 at 16:28, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> On April 05, 2016 5:48pm, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 01.04.16 at 16:47, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > + {
>> > + ASSERT(pdev->domain);
>> > + list_del(&pdev->domain_list);
>> > + pdev->domain = NULL;
>> > + pci_hide_existing_device(pdev);
>> > + break;
>> > + }
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + pcidevs_unlock();
>> > +
>> > + if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) )
>> > + domain_crash(d);
>>
>> else printk();
>>
>
> As I mentioned in commit log "If impacted domain is hardware domain, just
> throw out a warning (done in queue_invalidate_wait).",
> I am not sure whether we really need a printk() at this point or not.
I think the printk() belongs here; I do agree there's no need for two
printk()s on the same call tree.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
