On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 08:54:52AM +0200, Auger Eric wrote: > 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.
Right, the CPU_ prefix should probably be dropped if we use a new IOMMU log mask. Cheers, Edgar
