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 <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Prem, >>> >>> Missing commit message >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Prem Mallappa <prem.malla...@broadcom.com> >>>> --- >>>> 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 >
