On 05/22/2018 10:19 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 06:09:46PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 05/22/2018 12:56 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> Replace existing trace_vtd_err() with error_report_once() then stderr
>>> will capture something if any of the error happens, meanwhile we don't
>>> suffer from any DDOS. Then remove the trace point.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>> hw/i386/trace-events | 1 -
>>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>>> index fb31de9416..cf655fb9f6 100644
>>> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>>> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>>> @@ -285,14 +285,14 @@ static void vtd_generate_fault_event(IntelIOMMUState
>>> *s, uint32_t pre_fsts)
>>> {
>>> if (pre_fsts & VTD_FSTS_PPF || pre_fsts & VTD_FSTS_PFO ||
>>> pre_fsts & VTD_FSTS_IQE) {
>>> - trace_vtd_err("There are previous interrupt conditions "
>>> + error_report_once("There are previous interrupt conditions "
>>> "to be serviced by software, fault event "
>>> "is not generated.");
>>
>> Can you keep alignment consistent please?
>
> That was actually intended so reviewers don't need to skim those lines
> only caused by indents. If I'm going to touch those lines, then maybe
> I can make them even look better by dumping more valid information.
I see. I agree it is easier to review lines with substantial change,
however I now think it is then nicer to let the code exemplary for the
next one, if possible. So regardless your preference:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
Regards,
Phil.
