Message ID | 20200225132558.26152-1-julien@xen.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | xen/grant-table: Remove outdated warning in gnttab_grow_table() | expand |
On 25/02/2020 13:25, Julien Grall wrote: > One of the warning message in gnttab_grow_table() refers to a function > was removed in commit 6425f91c72 "xen/gnttab: Fold grant_table_{create, > set_limits}() into grant_table_init()". > > Since the commit, gt->active will be allocated while initializing the > grant table at domain creation. Therefore gt-active will always be > valid. > > Rather than replacing the warning by another one, we can now downgrade > the check to an ASSERT(). > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> TBH, I'd drop the assert. As you identify, its not helpful, and there is no chance we're moving back to a semi-not-initialised-yet world. Either way, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
On 25.02.2020 14:29, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 25/02/2020 13:25, Julien Grall wrote: >> One of the warning message in gnttab_grow_table() refers to a function >> was removed in commit 6425f91c72 "xen/gnttab: Fold grant_table_{create, >> set_limits}() into grant_table_init()". >> >> Since the commit, gt->active will be allocated while initializing the >> grant table at domain creation. Therefore gt-active will always be >> valid. >> >> Rather than replacing the warning by another one, we can now downgrade >> the check to an ASSERT(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> > > TBH, I'd drop the assert. +1 fwiw Jan
On 25/02/2020 13:29, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 25/02/2020 13:25, Julien Grall wrote: >> One of the warning message in gnttab_grow_table() refers to a function >> was removed in commit 6425f91c72 "xen/gnttab: Fold grant_table_{create, >> set_limits}() into grant_table_init()". >> >> Since the commit, gt->active will be allocated while initializing the >> grant table at domain creation. Therefore gt-active will always be >> valid. >> >> Rather than replacing the warning by another one, we can now downgrade >> the check to an ASSERT(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> > > TBH, I'd drop the assert. As you identify, its not helpful, and there > is no chance we're moving back to a semi-not-initialised-yet world. I will drop the ASSERT then and resend the patch. > > Either way, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Cheers,
diff --git a/xen/common/grant_table.c b/xen/common/grant_table.c index bc37acae0e..930d20b346 100644 --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c @@ -1793,11 +1793,7 @@ gnttab_grow_table(struct domain *d, unsigned int req_nr_frames) struct grant_table *gt = d->grant_table; unsigned int i, j; - if ( unlikely(!gt->active) ) - { - gprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "grant_table_set_limits() call missing\n"); - return -ENODEV; - } + ASSERT(gt->active); if ( req_nr_frames < INITIAL_NR_GRANT_FRAMES ) req_nr_frames = INITIAL_NR_GRANT_FRAMES;
One of the warning message in gnttab_grow_table() refers to a function was removed in commit 6425f91c72 "xen/gnttab: Fold grant_table_{create, set_limits}() into grant_table_init()". Since the commit, gt->active will be allocated while initializing the grant table at domain creation. Therefore gt-active will always be valid. Rather than replacing the warning by another one, we can now downgrade the check to an ASSERT(). Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> --- xen/common/grant_table.c | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)