On 19/03/2021 13:56, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 19.03.2021 13:59, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 16/03/2021 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 16.03.2021 17:18, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> In hindsight, this was a poor move. Some of these MSRs require probing >>>> for, >>>> causing unhelpful spew into xl dmesg, as well as spew from unit tests >>>> explicitly checking behaviour. >>> I can indeed see your point for MSRs that require probing. But what about >>> the others (which, as it seems, is the majority)? And perhaps specifically >>> what about the entire WRMSR side, which won't be related to probing? I'm >>> not opposed to the change, but I'd like to understand the reasoning for >>> every one of the MSRs, not just a subset. >>> >>> Of course such ever-growing lists of case labels aren't very nice - this >>> going away was one of the things I particularly liked about the original >>> change. >> The logging in the default case is only useful when it is genuinely MSRs >> we haven't considered. >> >> It is very useful at pointing bugs in guests, or bugs in Xen, but only >> when the logging is not drowned out by things we know about. > So would you mind adjusting the description accordingly? Right now, the > way it's written, it reads (to my non-native interpretation) as entirely > focusing on guests' probing needs. Even an adjustment as simple as > > "In hindsight, this was a poor move. Some of these MSRs require probing for, > cause unhelpful spew into xl dmesg, or cause spew from unit tests > explicitly checking behaviour." > > would already shift the focus imo.
Sure. I'll try to make this clearer. ~Andrew
