>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 20.09.08 10:36 >>>
>On 19/9/08 14:01, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Includes a small improvement (I think) to last_cpu(), and a necessary
>> conversion from BUG_ON() to WARN_ON() in vsnprintf().
>
>Why must it be WARN_ON()? You think you could specify strings so long that
>they overflow 32 bits? You've got other problems in that case.
No, that's not the reason. It's because of how bitmap_scnprintf() and
bitmap_scnlistprintf() work - they can (validly, assuming that the code
having been derived from Linux and still being that way in Linux, hence
apparently considered correct) pass negative sizes to scnprintf(), and
hence it must not kill the system to actually do so.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel