On Thu, Mar 31, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:54 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote: > > > I'll make this 2 patches. This current patch and another to rate limit > > > this pr_info() I think this patch is doing a lot already so would > > > prefer to just add a second. Is that reasonable? > > > > I strongly prefer removing the pr_info() entirely. As Marc pointed out, the > > info is redundant when KVM properly reports the issue. And worse, the info is > > useless unless there's exactly one VM running. Even then, it doesn't capture > > which vCPU failed. This is exactly why Jim, myself, and others, have been pushing > > to avoid using dmesg to report guest errors. They're helpful for initial > > development, but dead weight for production, and if they're helpful for development > > then odds are good that having proper reporting in production would also be valuable. > > Sounds good to me. Is a second patch OK with you? I think we get a lot > of cryptic cpu run exit reasons so fixing this up when we remove > pr_infos would be good. This would be a good example without this > pr_info or this change you'd have no idea whats going on. As in, a second patch to remove the pr_info? Yeah, no objection.
