From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9E4A00C3 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:10:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FF842D18; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:10:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9878A40E28 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:10:40 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1670497840; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MzrOEmiPkg8B0+iHIAyCxAsiSZ8gW99gi+14KW1Wil0=; b=TYxkKuvGzEuw8VphmW1MAwIKMrpv96ya3nZ2F4Ynfd8nTk0NCDNZPJYsP8+nKBR7z7iT5N JA2JHxIWI2HIlApIovvQtqz51QNJFOqvmS82ao46+KaO6qdZmMy2h+T6GrgzbMokygu0SP RswEp5mFt1PxTfo+xtzeg5JZglpMOpw= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-407-dDzQxzHcO-iqa725ULkZfg-1; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 06:10:38 -0500 X-MC-Unique: dDzQxzHcO-iqa725ULkZfg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id o5-20020a05600c510500b003cfca1a327fso655495wms.8 for ; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 03:10:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:subject:from:references:cc:to :content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MzrOEmiPkg8B0+iHIAyCxAsiSZ8gW99gi+14KW1Wil0=; b=jdmpXCaBqZxXlxWc4l2qPu7Q9ZktgKOeS0DkkU3kew4yb5pkAjsv5ZqclysveJQO/I SBnTKCxJkqqrk4/CAUpaL+1sWJa+qps10HywbHq7Ovbe4QmWkY/yJCG6WyMju6SGnn5D Mxzh4HPqWPPTS3NCJxNRKsLX8RBwSStepqEN4o61wiAkrSee/x3tbCFuI76erL0LuX2+ 6NUymE17dta9uSWHzjMYwxxFENi6RpGdDDV5e8gozNPzvpynZ5qa7o6oO/FUAM4am+Nm mOSq33yztQmJwAt9n6uJkX87EaKD8o2p3Jnh9X4HJLqoGyq1Tor0RE4nHwlVGN4Eamvb 2ZBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plgldnQfZgFcUxgQaKTi2l10HzGKlx6E/NptLheNfDWQiBfanhq uabkAu4FxTCT4nabqO7gd6FjnzNex3p363jjESJDquTKEsVtIJA/SCuYjEYAJgVp9lZwocmRAfQ UhBDU3XU= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:678a:0:b0:242:6d60:faea with SMTP id v10-20020a5d678a000000b002426d60faeamr7744955wru.149.1670497837625; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 03:10:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5nYOzeNfNJl5/qW0cIaR7h//loxaKU6nea5kxEO3MzMFSr8/WdMVtKE3GJ+WFUkGwFmx59FA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:678a:0:b0:242:6d60:faea with SMTP id v10-20020a5d678a000000b002426d60faeamr7744943wru.149.1670497837414; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 03:10:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.36] ([78.19.98.83]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z18-20020a1c4c12000000b003d1e051f671sm4662935wmf.9.2022.12.08.03.10.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Dec 2022 03:10:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:10:36 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 To: Maxime Coquelin , dev@dpdk.org, chenbo.xia@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org References: <20221206150257.70926-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> From: Kevin Traynor Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: decrease log level for unimplemented request In-Reply-To: <20221206150257.70926-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org On 06/12/2022 15:02, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > This patch changes VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ERR "not > implemented" log level from INFO to DEBUG. > > Indeed, it is not required to support this message type, > and since version 7.1, QEMU sends this message for every > queue. It could confuse the end-user, thinking there is an > issue where there are not. > > Implementing it could be an option, but it does nothing > special on QEMU side but displaying an error message. > > Fixes: fd29c33b651a ("vhost: handle unsupported message types in functions") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin > --- > lib/vhost/vhost_user.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c > index 9902ae9944..371d6304d6 100644 > --- a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c > +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c > @@ -1809,7 +1809,7 @@ static int vhost_user_set_vring_err(struct virtio_net **pdev, > > if (!(ctx->msg.payload.u64 & VHOST_USER_VRING_NOFD_MASK)) > close(ctx->fds[0]); > - VHOST_LOG_CONFIG(dev->ifname, INFO, "not implemented\n"); > + VHOST_LOG_CONFIG(dev->ifname, DEBUG, "not implemented\n"); > > return RTE_VHOST_MSG_RESULT_OK; > } Debug level seem fine for this and this is what is done in QEMU. Not an issue atm from what I see, but should we do the same for VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_FD ?