On 24.09.2015 13:37, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
>
> Some misc improvements to ivshmem debug.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/misc/ivshmem.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/misc/ivshmem.c b/hw/misc/ivshmem.c
> index c4c130d..71a71fc 100644
> --- a/hw/misc/ivshmem.c
> +++ b/hw/misc/ivshmem.c
> @@ -208,10 +208,13 @@ static void ivshmem_io_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
> if (vector < s->peers[dest].nb_eventfds) {
> IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("Notifying VM %d on vector %d\n", dest,
> vector);
> event_notifier_set(&s->peers[dest].eventfds[vector]);
> + } else {
> + IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("Invalid destination vector %d on VM %d\n",
> + vector, dest);
> }
> break;
> default:
> - IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("Invalid VM Doorbell VM %d\n", dest);
> + IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("Unhandled write " TARGET_FMT_plx "\n", addr);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -263,9 +266,9 @@ static void ivshmem_receive(void *opaque, const uint8_t
> *buf, int size)
> {
> IVShmemState *s = opaque;
>
> - ivshmem_IntrStatus_write(s, *buf);
> + IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("ivshmem_receive 0x%02x size: %d\n", *buf, size);
>
> - IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("ivshmem_receive 0x%02x\n", *buf);
> + ivshmem_IntrStatus_write(s, *buf);
> }
I may understand how this went here, so these debug messages are clearly
specific about this particular function.
here you have "ivshmem_receive". Do you want to put () to help someone getting
these messages after enabling debug to understand that he should look up this
function?
In the other messages though you (and the previous code) have been less
function-specific in the message.
>
> static int ivshmem_can_receive(void * opaque)
> @@ -592,6 +595,7 @@ static void ivshmem_use_msix(IVShmemState * s)
> PCIDevice *d = PCI_DEVICE(s);
> int i;
>
> + IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("use msix, present: %d\n", msix_present(d));
> if (!msix_present(d)) {
> return;
> }
hmm do you want to say "ivshmem_use_msix(): present: true/false?"
Or do you want to say something more generic about MSI-X in this case?
As is the comment you have:
1) if it is specific to this function behavior, it does not help to look up the
correct function
2) if it is a more generic comment, it does not help to understand what is
going on
Can you explain more what the purpose of that debug statement is?
Ciao
Claudio
