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 BB046424A2 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:38:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B438F406B4; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:38:02 +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 A023A40150 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:38:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1674819480; 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=KAwWiPXhCDyoojEU+/VWCY9KlxV5aJQg1/Jagv4SdQU=; b=Vu38WuDkpXxE4Fv9wysiqC0ufMswScwkmTceI6P7m8kE5wx/a6iW1/6SwuFN2IrDtLIDP+ jE8stUjeWQC2CneDKHBExw1vlk3OpzWcixTIboVSbdXWmJAh9NcOfp3argXAFgOcHcpZfV Dkfo1FYHUpFyDMLr6z0KFGFNJt5DSH8= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-611-4eH4-mOaMcOqN8_Z1scxBA-1; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 06:37:53 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 4eH4-mOaMcOqN8_Z1scxBA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 709C187A9E2; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.208.33] (unknown [10.39.208.33]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D99C492B01; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:37:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <21b1578a-9243-b855-a1a1-b6fa10902da6@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:37:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: decrease log level for unimplemented request To: Kevin Traynor , dev@dpdk.org, chenbo.xia@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org References: <20221206150257.70926-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> From: Maxime Coquelin In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 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: 8bit 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 Hi Kevin, On 12/8/22 12:10, Kevin Traynor wrote: > 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 ? > Right, it makes sense to do the same for VHOST_USER_SET_LOG_FD in the sake of consistency. Thanks, Maxime