On 26/01/20 08:31AM, Caleb Schlossin wrote: > > > On 1/19/26 4:18 AM, Aditya Gupta wrote: > > On 26/01/06 11:07AM, Caleb Schlossin wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 1/6/26 10:49 AM, Miles Glenn wrote: > >>> Hi Caleb. I wonder if it makes sense to upstream this commit since I > >>> suspect that most upstream users will not have the "unimp" log messages > >>> enabled unless they are debugging a problem and in that case, we would > >>> be erroneously masking these unimplemented registers from the logged > >>> output. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Glenn > >> > >> I understand your point. Here are my thoughts: > >> - Cleaning up these logs for valid accesses (PowerVM bringup and > >> development) reduces the overall log output and helps find real errors > >> - In the future, there may be a customer that wants to run PowerVM with > >> upstream QEMU. The more we upstream, the easier that will be. > >> - In the future, we are going to have a number of cases like this where we > >> accept accesses and don't log for every unimp access (to clean up log > >> output). If we choose to keep those patches private and don't upstream > >> them it's going to increase the number of private patches we keep, making > >> future rebasing more difficult. > >> - I'd prefer to upstream more patches, and focus on keeping only the > >> patches we need to private (for confidentiality or other reasons). To make > >> future rebasing easier. > > > > I agree with Glenn that we shouldn't mask these warnings for everyone. > > > > Since a warning saying a feature is unimplemented is better than > > silently not doing anything without any warnings. > > > > Maybe the excessive warnings should only be masked for PowerMV > > development work, rather than upstreaming, or we can always upstream > > once those are implemented. > > > > - Aditya G > > > > Ok. Would you like me to pull out this patch from the series and send out v2 > containing only the approved patches?
Yes Caleb, thanks for understanding. - Aditya G > > Thanks, > Caleb >
