On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:51:04 +0200
Pierre Morel [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2020-07-09 16:47, Halil Pasic wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:51:58 +0200
Pierre Morel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+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".
   

quoted

+		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:
[ref]). 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