>>> On 04.12.17 at 16:40, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 04/12/17 10:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Use this to cheaply add another assertion. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> --- >> TBD: Would it perhaps be better to return after the assertion? > > Yes, otherwise we risk falling into an infinite continue loop.
I've used -EILSEQ, but no, there's no infinite loop potential here, as there's a preemption check past the switch() statement (and there was "break" rather than "continue" after the assertion). This and the lack of reasonably suitable error code to return here was why I didn't use "return" in the first version. Or did you mean "infinite continuation loop" (affecting just the guest)? > With a suitable return value, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper > <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> Thanks. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
