From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40403) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aR2kl-0006o0-5Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:06:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aR2kf-0002ZH-Mn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:06:06 -0500 Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]:33274) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aR2kf-0002ZB-6D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:06:05 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id e64so21680489vkg.0 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:06:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y4b1oc96.fsf@linaro.org> 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: Peter Maydell Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:05:45 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBCZW5uw6ll?= Cc: QEMU Trivial , QEMU Developers , Peter Crosthwaite , Paolo Bonzini , Aurelien Jarno , Richard Henderson On 3 February 2016 at 18:54, Alex Benn=C3=A9e wrot= e: > 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. 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