From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48496) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fLWYR-0003oX-CP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:24:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fLWYM-00051W-BO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:23:59 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:33296) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fLWYM-00051F-1p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:23:54 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4NGJA7w067434 for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:23:52 -0400 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j5advctra-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 23 May 2018 12:23:52 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 23 May 2018 17:23:50 +0100 References: <20180522221655.78979-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20180522221655.78979-2-pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20180523113708.50b21a77.cohuck@redhat.com> <20180523164640.225908a9.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Halil Pasic Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 18:23:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180523164640.225908a9.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <5de50b20-a331-78ea-a7f4-6fdd995ed083@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v2 1/2] vfio-ccw: add force unlimited prefetch property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Dong Jia Shi , "Jason J. Herne" , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 05/23/2018 04:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> + if (!(sch->orb.ctrl0 & ORB_CTRL0_MASK_PFCH)) { >>>> + if (!(vcdev->force_orb_pfch)) { >>>> + warn_report("vfio-ccw requires PFCH flag set"); >>>> + sch_gen_unit_exception(sch); >>>> + css_inject_io_interrupt(sch); >>>> + return IOINST_CC_EXPECTED; >>>> + } else { >>>> + sch->orb.ctrl0 |= ORB_CTRL0_MASK_PFCH; >>>> + WARN_ONCE(vcdev->warned_force_orb_pfch, "PFCH flag forced"); >>> This message should probably mention vfio-ccw as well as the subchannel >>> id? >>> >> I was thinking about this. I think all it would make sense to have a common >> prefix for all reports coming form vfio-ccw (QEMU). But then I was like, that >> is a separate patch. >> >> Maybe something like: >> vfio-ccw (xx.xx.xxxx): specific message >> >> OTOH we don't seem to do that elsewhere (git grep -e 'warn\|error_report\|error_setg' -- hw/s390x/). >> AFAIR the error_setg captures context (like, src, line, func) but does not >> necessarily report it. Another question is if this should be extended to >> hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c >> >> What do you think? > I'm not sure that makes sense, especially as not everything might > explicitly refer to a certain subchannel. > > Let's just add the subchannel id here? In this case, this is really a > useful piece of information (which device is showing this behaviour?) > The same applies to warn_report("vfio-ccw requires PFCH flag set") (that is, on which device (that has no force-orb-pfch=on specified) is the guest issuing ORBs with the PFCH unset), or? Should I go for "vfio-ccw (xx.xx.xxxx): vfio-ccw requires PFCH flag set" and "vfio-ccw (xx.xx.xxxx): PFCH flag forced" or just for the second one, or some third option? Regards, Halil