On 14/12/06 12:22, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But hypercall context to me seems exactly the right context for synchronously
> crashing a domain - am I missing something here? What else (if any) do you
> consider appropriate use of this (i.e. can't it go away then altogether)?
> I'm specifically asking because I have a patch (as talked about briefly
> before,
> pending for submission after 3.0.4) to replace the BUG() stuff with a more
> Linux-like approach, which at once also puts things like WARN() and also the
> crashing of a domain into the same framework. Obviously, if you consider
> domain_crash_synchronous() use ill in general, I shouldn't introduce a
> CRASH_ME() macro here.
domain_crash() is fine, I just want to get rid of domain_crash_synchronous()
in general, except in specialised cases like entry.S. It's used lazily and
simply leads to broken error paths.
 -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel