Le mer. 27 mars 2019 19:57, Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> a
écrit :

> Instead of using error_report() to print guest errors let's use
> qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,...) to log the error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
> ---
>  hw/riscv/sifive_plic.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/riscv/sifive_plic.c b/hw/riscv/sifive_plic.c
> index 70a85cd075..7f373d6c9d 100644
> --- a/hw/riscv/sifive_plic.c
> +++ b/hw/riscv/sifive_plic.c
> @@ -262,7 +262,9 @@ static uint64_t sifive_plic_read(void *opaque, hwaddr
> addr, unsigned size)
>      }
>
>  err:
> -    error_report("plic: invalid register read: %08x", (uint32_t)addr);
> +    qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
> +                  "%s: Invalid register read 0x%" HWADDR_PRIx "\n",
> +                  __func__, addr);
>      return 0;
>  }
>
> @@ -289,7 +291,9 @@ static void sifive_plic_write(void *opaque, hwaddr
> addr, uint64_t value,
>      } else if (addr >= plic->pending_base && /* 1 bit per source */
>                 addr < plic->pending_base + (plic->num_sources >> 3))
>      {
> -        error_report("plic: invalid pending write: %08x", (uint32_t)addr);
> +        qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
> +                      "%s: invalid pending write: 0x%" HWADDR_PRIx "",
> +                      __func__, addr);
>          return;
>      } else if (addr >= plic->enable_base && /* 1 bit per source */
>          addr < plic->enable_base + plic->num_addrs * plic->enable_stride)
> @@ -339,7 +343,9 @@ static void sifive_plic_write(void *opaque, hwaddr
> addr, uint64_t value,
>      }
>
>  err:
> -    error_report("plic: invalid register write: %08x", (uint32_t)addr);
> +    qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
> +                  "%s: Invalid register write 0x%" HWADDR_PRIx "\n",
> +                  __func__, addr);
>  }
>
>  static const MemoryRegionOps sifive_plic_ops = {
> --
> 2.21.0
>

I'm using the GMail embedded gapp and wonder if the deduplication features
is not sometimes abusive, when the same patch is sent increasing versions,
I reply to the last version I see but my reply looks like I replied to the
first.
I might be also misusing the gapp :)
Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>

>

Reply via email to