On 5/10/19 2:21 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -1099,19 +1100,19 @@ long p2m_pt_audit_p2m(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
>> entry_count++;
>> continue;
>> }
>> - mfn = l1e_get_pfn(l1e[i1]);
>> - ASSERT(mfn_valid(_mfn(mfn)));
>> - m2pfn = get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn);
>> + mfn = l1e_get_mfn(l1e[i1]);
>> + ASSERT(mfn_valid(mfn));
>> + m2pfn = get_pfn_from_mfn(mfn);
>> if ( m2pfn != gfn &&
>> type != p2m_mmio_direct &&
>> !p2m_is_grant(type) &&
>> !p2m_is_shared(type) )
>> {
>> pmbad++;
>> - printk("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx"
>> - " -> gfn %#lx\n", gfn, mfn, m2pfn);
>> - P2M_PRINTK("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx"
>> - " -> gfn %#lx\n", gfn, mfn, m2pfn);
>> + printk("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %"PRI_mfn" ->
>> gfn %#lx\n",
>> + gfn, mfn_x(mfn), m2pfn);
>> + P2M_PRINTK("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn
>> %"PRI_mfn" -> gfn %#lx\n",
>> + gfn, mfn_x(mfn), m2pfn);
>
> George, do we really mean to have printk() and P2M_PRINTK() here?
Looks like this was introduced (by me!) in a589ff6c179; my best guess is
that it was due to a bad rebase merge.
I'll leave it to Julien to decide if he wants to clean this up or leave
it be.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
