qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 4/4] ppc: remove excessive logging


From: Alexander Graf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 4/4] ppc: remove excessive logging
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:48:43 +0200


> Am 16.07.2014 um 10:32 schrieb Joakim Tjernlund <address@hidden>:
> 
> Riku Voipio <address@hidden> wrote on 2014/07/16 09:55:50:
> 
>> From: Riku Voipio <address@hidden>
>> To: Joakim Tjernlund <address@hidden>,
>> Cc: Alexander Graf <address@hidden>, Peter Maydell
> <address@hidden>, "address@hidden" <address@hidden>, 
> QEMU Developers <address@hidden>
>> Date: 2014/07/16 09:55
>> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 4/4] ppc: remove excessive
> logging
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 04:06:09PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>> Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote on 2014/07/12 12:41:05:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12.07.14 12:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 July 2014 10:39, Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12.07.14 10:58, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12 July 2014 01:39, Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>> What do the other platforms do on illegal instructions during
> user 
>>> mode?
>>>>>>>> Any way we can get consistency across the board?
>>>>>>> Mostly it looks like they just silently generate the SIGILL.
>>>>>>> Consistency has never been our strong point :-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That means this patch brings things towards consistency? It's
>>> certainly good
>>>>>> for me then :)
>>>>> No, this just removes one use of this logging. If you
>>>>> wanted consistency we should remove all of them...
>> 
>>>> Agreed :)
>> 
>>> So can I infer from this discussion that you will apply the patch?
>> 
>> I think Peter and Alex suggest that the EXCP_DUMP() loggings should be
>> removed from all cases in PPC code where TARGET_SIGILL is risen. Your
>> patch removes just once case, and that would make PPC code become
>> internally inconsistent where some SIGILLs are logged and others aren't.
> 
> Something like that. This is one step in that direction. We(or I cannot) 
> do
> the consistency for all cases/arches at once. With the patch we become
> one step closer to the Linux kernel so I don't see why not apply it.

That's not how it will end up though. If we apply this one patch now, it will 
stay that way forever and be even more confusing and inconsistent than today.

I think what we really want is proper -d int logging on all archs for 
linux-user. This patch is getting us nowhere close to it.


Alex




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]