On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:51:58 +0200
Pierre Morel <[email protected]> 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
