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 1B293A0563; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:26:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006541D6FE; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AF71C24A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:26:14 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1586957174; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hSEubG0y/q+m2PRgy2gClmFcYzFilITUvRk8k5tVj/c=; b=MotU/Lnm2g1fzh2aWu+Qni61Oez3QnyEJd9L5DvY2Q+Js4KEeIq9evcWNexOch2ppKogMY wtMN4UO1572QTrKD+E6rAkyuz0tmFjyF0Uw7uaMPbIRAD8WcAG+pd0/OZ5kSRbcO/DDfZD PzVPOrIOFhsLLLbIXsvNSH3xUpjM2oA= Received: from mail-il1-f197.google.com (mail-il1-f197.google.com [209.85.166.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-251-u1u2UlavOHKmOjHYEoVenw-1; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:26:13 -0400 X-MC-Unique: u1u2UlavOHKmOjHYEoVenw-1 Received: by mail-il1-f197.google.com with SMTP id a79so3992951ill.19 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:26:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PQ771fuIwGhp5xM1E7/nTZ8JSX02vC2dwupgM8J/7n8=; b=L/ub+YKVcSmZBu6trpawLYswqeiuSn0tERStm4ep5mTWVaZZjNjmpk7klsN4csVqsl jpoTkrsb4j1+QgsdmpWLvOpXzfRyl/4JvdFaKct/aEE5fIc/Klrlrs4AcIKPN8BTT+mL mvhVsWSuoz7xKSD7XgvsgrsbrXrQ4Jz4I0SFwsY9rMnoFfO5WN22fz2mF9C+z96C/QyD 181C4chk+VZscpG2GQNJz0xj4H/USeD/aEXJUBVUjLp8IgJMTzqwcOJDto5tZOoeKYMS m904Wpzr1L2/BLQbKwV3UqF8QyhT3WDa9a6zsIPliLhJjM9SvmJumapVGWYxwnMO8yZg cDmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZey6Tr2FNA2TM6d0oamJTaWWMWMi9HyG5kBt2m62rX7nh/EgjI BpSWi2MCYcyyOsnEiibdIt2GpwEvQdc1PERyVIJAkOOENIopG41pdMNZ0Mz2arwAusN/xvPrcjN xK+d+6UFU6H6zGFLLDi0= X-Received: by 2002:a02:c9d0:: with SMTP id c16mr26020698jap.80.1586957171970; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:26:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIYw90y2WeL4mtt9jOROMTOU/wgUyUCeiuT5XJcefldSrI3paaj8i20TeplhwSgzfQNFzBkKfmK0K8Y9ITdvTE= X-Received: by 2002:a02:c9d0:: with SMTP id c16mr26020680jap.80.1586957171630; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:26:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200403153709.3703448-1-jerinj@marvell.com> <20200413150116.734047-1-jerinj@marvell.com> In-Reply-To: <20200413150116.734047-1-jerinj@marvell.com> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:26:00 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran Cc: dev , Thomas Monjalon , Bruce Richardson , =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=C3=B6nnblom?= , Sunil Kumar Kori X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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" Thanks Jerin for this new version. New round of comments. - 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 - Having functions "is_disabled" has little value when a "is_enabled" counterpart exists. - 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 ? --=20 David Marchand