Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/9] log: Add new IOMMU type

[Auger Eric]

Hi Edgar, Prem,

On 25/09/2016 16:58, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:53:39AM +0530, Prem Mallappa wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Auger Eric <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Prem,
>>>
>>> Missing commit message
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Prem Mallappa <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>  include/qemu/log.h | 1 +
>>>>  util/log.c         | 2 ++
>>>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/qemu/log.h b/include/qemu/log.h
>>>> index 234fa81..3dd2131 100644
>>>> --- a/include/qemu/log.h
>>>> +++ b/include/qemu/log.h
>>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ static inline bool qemu_log_separate(void)
>>>>  #define CPU_LOG_TB_NOCHAIN (1 << 13)
>>>>  #define CPU_LOG_PAGE       (1 << 14)
>>>>  #define LOG_TRACE          (1 << 15)
>>>> +#define CPU_LOG_IOMMU      (1 << 16)
>>> why is it prefixed with CPU_ ?
>>> besides all arm gic devices seem to use LOG_GUEST_ERROR. what is the
>>> rationale behind introducing a new enum?
>>>
>>
>> Will change this to LOG_GUEST_ERROR, if others on the list are okay.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> LOG_GUEST_ERROR is used for cases when the guest programs things in bad
> way. E.g sets up a register in an invalid manner or writes to regs that
> don't exist.
> 
> In this case we're logging information for valid translation steps, I
> would prefer if we could use something else than LOG_GUEST_ERROR.
> An IOMMU logging class sounds good to me.

Thank you for the clarification; so indeed LOG_GUEST_ERROR which was my
suggestion is not a good idea. With respect to that patch I was also
wondering whether the CPU_ prefix was relevant.

Thanks

Eric
> 
> Best regards,
> Edgar
>