qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] hw/mips/gt64xxx: Remove dynamic field width from trac


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] hw/mips/gt64xxx: Remove dynamic field width from trace events
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 22:24:05 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1

On 11/8/19 4:58 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/8/19 8:40 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Since not all trace backends support dynamic field width in
format (dtrace via stap does not), replace by a static field
width instead.

Reported-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1844817
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
---
v2: Do not update qemu_log_mask()
---
  hw/mips/gt64xxx_pci.c | 16 ++++++++--------
  hw/mips/trace-events  |  4 ++--
  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/mips/gt64xxx_pci.c b/hw/mips/gt64xxx_pci.c
index 5cab9c1ee1..6743e7c929 100644
--- a/hw/mips/gt64xxx_pci.c
+++ b/hw/mips/gt64xxx_pci.c
@@ -642,19 +642,19 @@ static void gt64120_writel(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
          /* not really implemented */
          s->regs[saddr] = ~(~(s->regs[saddr]) | ~(val & 0xfffffffe));
          s->regs[saddr] |= !!(s->regs[saddr] & 0xfffffffe);
-        trace_gt64120_write("INTRCAUSE", size << 1, val);
+        trace_gt64120_write("INTRCAUSE", size << 3, val);

Again, this isn't mentioned in the commit message.  Why are you changing parameter values?


+++ b/hw/mips/trace-events
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
  # gt64xxx.c
-gt64120_read(const char *regname, int width, uint64_t value) "gt64120 read %s value:0x%0*" PRIx64 -gt64120_write(const char *regname, int width, uint64_t value) "gt64120 write %s value:0x%0*" PRIx64 +gt64120_read(const char *regname, int width, uint64_t value) "gt64120 read %s width:%d value:0x%08" PRIx64 +gt64120_write(const char *regname, int width, uint64_t value) "gt64120 write %s width:%d value:0x%08" PRIx64

Huh, we were really broken - the old code (if passed to printf) would try to parse 4 parameters, even though it was only passed 3.  But it looks like you still need a v3.

Oops. I am surprise the compiler doesn't emit a warning here...




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]