From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40792) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fSJCr-0001yn-4K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:33:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fSJCn-0002Sh-VP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:33:45 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:54702 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fSJCn-0002Ri-Q9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:33:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:33:34 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20180611093333.GA2661@work-vm> References: <1528653731-4920-1-git-send-email-keno@juliacomputing.com> <87tvq9lps3.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] cutils: Provide strchrnul List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Markus Armbruster , Keno Fischer , QEMU Developers , Greg Kurz , Gerd Hoffmann , Paolo Bonzini * Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@linaro.org) wrote: > On 11 June 2018 at 08:56, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > You're not printing $strchrnul like we print other configuration > > results. Hmm, we're not printing several of them. Question for > > maintainers (MAINTAINERS doesn't have any, so I'm cc'ing the top three > > coughed up by get_maintainer.pl): bug or feature? If feature, how do we > > decide what to print? > > If we printed everything that we tested for then the output would > be unhelpfully enormous. My view is that we should print the > "interesting" things for the user, ie the higher-level things > that the user could potentially turn on by installing more > libraries or has turned off explicitly or whatever. Reporting > whether the host OS has strchrnul or whether we've had to > provide our own implementation is doubly uninteresting: > * there's nothing the user could do to change this > * there is no visible effect (missing features, worse performance) > > There's an argument that we should also log every config check > result somehow (I think autoconf configures do this), but I > don't think that our 'print stuff to stdout' is the right place > for that. We're not completely consistent, but I agree that we shouldn't print the tiny things: We're printing things that: a) Are user visible (e.g. KVM support) b) Reasonably major choices we make (e.g. coroutine backend) c) Some lesser things (madvise/posix_madvise/posix_memalign) However even (c) could be a problem if none were found We probably shouldn't bother with printing things that have no impact to either the user, or someone trying to cofnigure it and wondering why a feature is missing. Dave > thanks > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK