From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE244A0563; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:43:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78EB91D719; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:43:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2F21D715 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:43:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8EB5C011C; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:43:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=1mR7VQaIp7Nb3pdjM7TtUuRQC8fTzCfyIS4ttOPX/Sg=; b=dNE7rmz/VJxo YYSl8LbTiCF75cUhL5weSxpoq1MnTJXYg9fItclftIFJ8gq1m0tbN7ggNClwTN4X VXQg/oq9x9gW1c3saaDviFaBd8MTOJim/BOAsSaxVstj9MAr/A/axx6ATkgvmr8J FrlfEWfRYIKXxPkDLcfow6mb1DoEpXM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=1mR7VQaIp7Nb3pdjM7TtUuRQC8fTzCfyIS4ttOPX/ Sg=; b=UMBmqhTihLP2TSU+3tXHeqjaD9SrJTPLJQwvBlQNLpokXElGLxXTO7Hyv /dYTTwnAjkhATHZBs5rmDDH1jfrBsex+NgjSt9eDA2OY52tr68HBnUWKUuh2cF8a Tt10O3mSxqyw2c61h9Genhznb+atvU//KXNFVR0E8tT2xggDeBKjixEKfsISPrkG DvhvD5lsTxpo3wOgnCHyNv7jkzOccpLLPpVbiTEr+LQ3DFYwjgkdNoQSh8I3S+W7 hmqNAHSDOe+IHZQgdguVFH9HOIYI1mSwujbzdQziyOTVKJn1iRG0iIUDvRTjol6Q qljEw1ky4eCNB5ZqC1zO936pBz8cw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrfeefgdehjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 42698306005C; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:43:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , David Marchand Cc: dev , Bruce Richardson , Mattias =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F6nnblom?= , Sunil Kumar Kori Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:43:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4091085.yaVYbkx8dN@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200403153709.3703448-1-jerinj@marvell.com> <20200413150116.734047-1-jerinj@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 15/04/2020 15:26, David Marchand: > - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking > about who will use them? > * rte_trace.h (rte_trace_ prefix for all functions/macros/types) for > users of the trace framework that want to > * get the status of the whole trace subsystem, > * enable/disable tracepoints by pattern/regexp, > * dump the current events, > * rte_tracepoint.h (rte_tracepoint_ prefix for all > functions/macros/types) for developers that want to add tracepoints to > their code I like this idea. > - Having functions "is_disabled" has little value when a "is_enabled" > counterpart exists. Yes, which one do we choose? is_enabled? > - What is the value of having a _public_ rte_trace_is_invalid() ? > A final user would need to lookup by name to get a trace descriptor > and we should hope that such a lookup returns a valid descriptor :-). > A developer would already have the descriptor hook point in his own > code: by construction, if the tracepoint is registered, then the > descriptor is valid, else, it is unknown. > > > - I did not get why we put the trace descriptors in a specific elf > section, can you explain the benefits? > > > - I can see no protection on the tracepoint list. Could we have issues > with control/application threads that dpdk does not control, dynamic > loading of libraries.. ? > > > - Following comment on v4 and the removal of the mode per tracepoint > api, don't we need to put the current select mode in each tracepoint > descriptor when registering a trace point ?