On June 23, 2016 12:18 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >>> On 22.06.16 at 17:54, <quan...@intel.com> wrote: > > On June 17, 2016 3:01 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> And again I don't understand: ASSERT()s are to verify assumed state. > >> If > > static > >> code analysis resulted in understanding a function is unreachable > >> when qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr is zero (because qinval ought to have got > >> disabled if > > any > >> of the table setup failed), then adding ASSERT() would (a) document > >> that and > >> (b) allow to know quickly if something broke that assumption. > > > > other than enable_qinval() -- yes, I need to convert conditionals of > > qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr into ASSERT()s.. > > But in enable_qinval(), I am still not quite sure whether I need to > > convert these conditionals of qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr into ASSERT()s or > > not. > > No, I don't think you want to so there - you'd bring the system down in case > of an actual initialization error. ASSERT()s should only be used on conditions > controlled entirely by the hypervisor. >
Jan, thank you. Now I am clear. Quan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
