On 10.07.2024 12:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.07.2024 13:23, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Alistair Francis <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/riscv/setup.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c
>> index a6a29a1508..4f06203b46 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,20 @@ void arch_get_xen_caps(xen_capabilities_info_t *info)
>> unsigned char __initdata cpu0_boot_stack[STACK_SIZE]
>> __aligned(STACK_SIZE);
>>
>> +static void test_run_in_exception(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> + printk("If you see this message, ");
>> + printk("run_in_exception_handler is most likely working\n");
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_macros_from_bug_h(void)
>> +{
>> + run_in_exception_handler(test_run_in_exception);
>> + WARN();
>> + printk("If you see this message, ");
>> + printk("WARN is most likely working\n");
>> +}
>
> While for the moment this may be okay, in the longer run WARN() will cause
> quite a bit of output that you don't want on every boot. The further plans
> here will want mentioning in the description.
>
> Additionally as part of re-basing I think you would have wanted to put this
> under the (relatively new) SELF_TESTS Kconfig control.
Oh, and: Is it possible there's a word ("exception"?) missing from the title?
Jan
