On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:51:04 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-07-09 16:47, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:51:58 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>>> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
> >>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, "device must provide VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
> >>>
> >>> I'd probably use "legacy virtio not supported with protected
> >>> virtualization".
> >>>
> >>>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
> >>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> >>>> + "device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
> >>>
> >>> "support for limited memory access required for protected
> >>> virtualization"
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> Mentioning the feature flag is shorter in both cases, though.
> >>
> >> And I think easier to look for in case of debugging purpose.
> >> I change it if there is more demands.
> >
> > Not all our end users are kernel and/or qemu developers. I find the
> > messages from v4 less technical, more informative, and way better.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Halil
> >
>
> Can you please tell me the messages you are speaking of, because for me
> the warning's messages are exactly the same in v4 and v5!?
>
> I checked many times, but may be I still missed something.
>
Sorry, my bad. My brain is over-generating. The messages where discussed
at v3 and Connie made a very similar proposal to the one above which I
seconded (for reference look at Message-ID:
<833c71f2-0057-896a-5e21-2c6263834402@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>). I was under the
impression that it got implemented in v4, but it was not. That's why I
ended up talking bs.
Regards,
Halil
