On 2025-04-09 06:33, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
On Wed Apr 9, 2025 at 7:34 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
@@ -1010,15 +1010,15 @@ static struct domain *__init create_dom0(struct
boot_info *bi)
dom0_cfg.flags |= XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu;
/* Create initial domain. Not d0 for pvshim. */
- domid = get_initial_domain_id();
- d = domain_create(domid, &dom0_cfg, pv_shim ? 0 : CDF_privileged);
+ bd->domid = get_initial_domain_id();
+ d = domain_create(bd->domid, &dom0_cfg, pv_shim ? 0 : CDF_privileged);
if ( IS_ERR(d) )
- panic("Error creating d%u: %ld\n", domid, PTR_ERR(d));
+ panic("Error creating d%u: %ld\n", bd->domid, PTR_ERR(d));
init_dom0_cpuid_policy(d);
if ( alloc_dom0_vcpu0(d) == NULL )
- panic("Error creating d%uv0\n", domid);
+ panic("Error creating %pd vcpu 0\n", d);
And why exactly is this not %pdv0?
Likely to avoid what looks like a highly cryptic format specifier. But I
agree your option seems nicer.
Hi, Jan. Sorry, I made this change. In earlier feedback you wrote:
> That said, since vsprintf.c:print_vcpu() calls print_domain(), using
> %pd is certainly an option here (inconsistencies would arise if %pv
> and %pd presented domain IDs in [perhaps just slightly] different
> ways).
I took that to mean you thought "faking" %pv is undesirable, so I just
wrote in in a different form to avoid the potential inconsistency. I'm
fine with %pdv0.
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Thanks,
Jason
