From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNp2D-0001xO-5K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:46:53 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNp29-0001w4-Pe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:46:51 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37274 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LNp29-0001vp-HY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:46:49 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54705) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LNp29-0002x3-1u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:46:49 -0500 Received: from Relay1.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADDF48517 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:46:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49709122.4000009@suse.de> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:52:34 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH -v2 1/2] Log reset events References: <49705BCF.8020506@siemens.com> <761ea48b0901160220o371db87m94c4ad83a2f65a09@mail.gmail.com> <49707035.2000606@siemens.com> <49707600.3070509@siemens.com> <49707A15.5030803@suse.de> <761ea48b0901160412i67bb876flcb0070ccdf4ac120@mail.gmail.com> <49707CD2.8090003@suse.de> <49707D1C.1080907@siemens.com> <49708D1A.7050207@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <49708D1A.7050207@siemens.com> 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 Jan Kiszka schrieb: > Making logfile and loglevel static means enforcing a function call just > to check if we perform logging. Would the additional overhead be > acceptable for all qemu_log* spots? Unless maintainers tell me "yes", I > will not touch this part for now. Well, seems you have a point... I guess that's not acceptable. But leaving loglevel global and making logfile static should still be possible, right? Kevin