From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35404) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aRDx5-00011f-WF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 02:03:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aRDx2-0001jn-RI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 02:03:39 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]:33391) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aRDx2-0001jS-FX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 02:03:36 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id l66so12346270wml.0 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:03:36 -0800 (PST) References: <1438593291-27109-1-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <1438593291-27109-12-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <20150804123331.GB8960@aurel32.net> <87y4b1oc96.fsf@linaro.org> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:03:33 +0000 Message-ID: <87wpqlneii.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 11/11] cputlb: modernise the debug support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Trivial , QEMU Developers , Peter Crosthwaite , Paolo Bonzini , Aurelien Jarno , Richard Henderson Peter Maydell writes: > On 3 February 2016 at 18:54, Alex Bennée wrote: >> It preserves the old behaviour (and the general behaviour of DEBUG_FOO >> going to stderr). However I'm happy to make it default to using the log >> output. >> >> It does raise the question of if we should just enable the debugging by >> default? > > Not without thinking carefully about it. This is programmer > debug code for figuring out what's happening in a performance > sensitive bit of code. "Just print to stderr" is the classic > way to do this, and I don't think we should just convert that > into userfacing trace. Shall I just go back to the original fprintf output then? I made the output optional a few review comments back. > > There may be useful user facing trace we can do of TLB > operations but I wouldn't assume that our current debug > printfs are it. > > thanks > -- PMM -- Alex Bennée