From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JmmZR-0004KS-6Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:07:49 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JmmZM-0004HV-Ip for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:07:48 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JmmZL-0004H4-Tv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:07:44 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2] helo=mx1.suse.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JmmCB-000760-Bq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:43:48 -0400 Received: from Relay1.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6372404EA for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48085E03.5040708@suse.de> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:38:27 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] x86: Reboot CPU on triple fault - Version 4 References: <47EE86E0.4070703@reactos.org> <9C7667CB-2CF0-4AC0-843B-6EF442196CAC@csgraf.de> <47F0B445.4030806@suse.de> <4804D254.5040301@siemens.com> <4805F4B0.5020802@siemens.com> <4806009E.8060407@suse.de> <48060F42.3080709@codemonkey.ws> <48070533.5060405@siemens.com> <48074740.4000202@codemonkey.ws> <48075A4C.5050205@siemens.com> <4807972C.8030807@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4807972C.8030807@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Anthony Liguori schrieb: > It's not a question of whether it's logged, it's a question of whether > it gets logged *specially*. That's the crux of the discussion here. My > argument is that triple faults are not sufficiently special that they > warrant *special* logging. I think CPU resets are special enough indeed. Obviously there _are_ use cases for this option and nobody who doesn't turn it on intentionally could ever get hurt by it. So what is your problem with it? Honestly, it is ridiculous that we keep arguing about log messages while the main thing changed by the patch is the introduction of the correct CPU reset. I suspect we would never have discussed all these loglevel things if the latest patch wouldn't have been submitted as answer on a (not even working) patch which tried to remove the log... Kevin