On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:51:04 +0200 Pierre Morel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-09 16:47, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:51:58 +0200 > > Pierre Morel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + if (!is_prot_virt_guest()) > >>>> + return 0; > >>>> + > >>>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) { > >>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, "device must provide > >>>> VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n"); > >>> > >>> I'd probably use "legacy virtio not supported with protected > >>> virtualization". > >>> > >>>> + return -ENODEV; > >>>> + } > >>>> + > >>>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) { > >>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, > >>>> + "device must provide > >>>> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n"); > >>> > >>> "support for limited memory access required for protected > >>> virtualization" > >>> > >>> ? > >>> > >>> Mentioning the feature flag is shorter in both cases, though. > >> > >> And I think easier to look for in case of debugging purpose. > >> I change it if there is more demands. > > > > Not all our end users are kernel and/or qemu developers. I find the > > messages from v4 less technical, more informative, and way better. > > > > Regards, > > Halil > > > > Can you please tell me the messages you are speaking of, because for me > the warning's messages are exactly the same in v4 and v5!? > > I checked many times, but may be I still missed something. > Sorry, my bad. My brain is over-generating. The messages where discussed at v3 and Connie made a very similar proposal to the one above which I seconded (for reference look at Message-ID: <[email protected]>). I was under the impression that it got implemented in v4, but it was not. That's why I ended up talking bs. Regards, Halil
