From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JmrGL-0003kG-24 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:08:25 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JmrGJ-0003ju-Hf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:08:24 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JmrGJ-0003jr-Ev for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:08:23 -0400 Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.177]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JmrGJ-0001U7-Dx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:08:23 -0400 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so234560ele.12 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4808AB52.8060104@codemonkey.ws> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:08:18 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori 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> <48085E03.5040708@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <48085E03.5040708@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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 Kevin Wolf wrote: > 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? > You're missing my whole point. v4 spewed stuff to stderr. That's the problem I had. > 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... > The patch still isn't right but it's close. Logging events to logfile is fine. It's logging to stderr that was problematic. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Kevin > > >