Quiet dead_code warning (referenced by name)

[gliptak]

https://buildkite.com/firecracker/firecracker-ci-aarch64/builds/405#bd3e4c7f-a0f5-421a-8007-47af1faf05b8

warning: function is never used: `default_log_options`
  --> vmm/src/vmm_config/logger.rs:53:1
   |
53 | fn default_log_options() -> Value {
   | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |
   = note: #[warn(dead_code)] on by default

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[gliptak]

@serban300 do you see the build fail relating to my update ion warning?

http://jenkins.katacontainers.io/job/kata-containers-firecracker-PR/259/console

[dianpopa]

Hi @gliptak,

These warning errors are related to support for gathering dirty pages from kvm which is missing on aarch64. We are planning on starting work on adding that in the near future. See #866.
So, my opinion is that it isn t worth investing effort into making a temporary fix like this one. What do you think?

[dianpopa]

@serban300 do you see the build fail relating to my update ion warning?

http://jenkins.katacontainers.io/job/kata-containers-firecracker-PR/259/console

You do not need to worry about the kata-containers-CI failing. It is not related to this particular PR. I already let them know about this issue and they are handling it.

[gliptak]

@dianpopa the reason I was working these warnings, because after cleaning them up, you can configure rustc failing on these as errors, offering tighter validation. If this is of limited/no value, I will close this PR

[dianpopa]

@dianpopa the reason I was working these warnings, because after cleaning them up, you can configure rustc failing on these as errors, offering tighter validation. If this is of limited/no value, I will close this PR

Are you referring to the -D flag that turns errors into warnings? I agree with this approach, moreover we use that flag in the integration test doing clippy validation and we are planning to add clippy enforcement for aarch64 too. See #1007. What I am saying is that we would prefer to do them sequentially (#866 and then #1007) so that we do not add and then remove the same code.

[acatangiu]

Closing this due to inactivity and lack of a clear next step. Feel free to reopen.