DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: John Ousterhout <ouster@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] log: respect rte_openlog_stream calls before rte_eal_init
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:30:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <39898498.0kdAxWznnB@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXJAmyrmpMgkSety2HW_Oain91AZad-9uVqMoUCQRj2ZhA7XQ@mail.gmail.com>

2016-10-11 09:30, John Ousterhout:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 2016-10-10 15:39, John Ousterhout:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Note: I see from the code that Linux and BSD set different default
> streams:
> > > Linux uses stdout, while BSD uses stderr. This patch retains the
> distinction,
> > > though I'm not sure why it is there.
> >
> > I don't know either.
> > What is best between stdout and stderr for logs?
> 
> I would guess that stdout makes more sense, since most log entries describe
> normal operation, not errors. I'm happy to make these consistent, but this
> would introduce a behavior change for BSD (which currently uses stderr);
> would that be considered antisocial?

No, that's OK to use stdout on BSD.

> > > -int
> > > -rte_eal_common_log_init(FILE *default_log)
> > > +void
> > > +rte_eal_log_set_default(FILE *default_log)
> > >  {
> > >       default_log_stream = default_log;
> > > -     rte_openlog_stream(default_log);
> > >
> > >  #if RTE_LOG_LEVEL >= RTE_LOG_DEBUG
> > >       RTE_LOG(NOTICE, EAL, "Debug logs available - lower
> performance\n");
> > >  #endif
> > > -
> > > -     return 0;
> > >  }
> >
> > Do we really need a function for that?
> > Why not just initialize default_log_stream statically?
> 
> Right now, different platforms have different defaults. BSD uses stderr
> always. Linux starts out with stdout as the default, but later during
> initialization it switches to a different default that logs messages both
> to  standard output and also to syslog. I don't have enough experience with
> DPDK to know whether a single approach is really right for all systems (or
> which approach it should be), and since I'm a DPDK newbie I thought it best
> to take a more conservative approach and avoid behavioral changes. My
> personal preference would be to minimize mission creep with this patch and
> leave that behavior in place for someone with more expertise to deal with
> later (and this issue is orthogonal to the main goal of the patch). But, if
> unifying the log defaults is considered essential to the patch (and is
> noncontroversial), I'm willing to implement it.

OK sorry, I'm mixing things.

1/ When removing early log functions, you are replacing early init with
a default set to stderr/stdout via rte_eal_log_set_default.
I think you can just set statically to stdout:
	static FILE *default_log_stream = stdout;

2/ Yes, on Linux, a more complex stream with stdout + syslog is set.
It is OK to use rte_eal_log_set_default for that usage.
Note that there is a stream which is not used and can be removed in eal_private.h:
	extern FILE *eal_default_log_stream;
Other note: rte_eal_log_set_default is not a public function so should be
named eal_log_set_default.

3/ When calling rte_eal_log_set_default on BSD from rte_eal_log_init,
you can keep stderr but an empty function would be better because
it is not called and already set (to stderr or stdout if 1/).

4/ rte_eal_log_init can be called earlier to replace early init.

5/ It would be simpler to understand by splitting in two patches
(remove early log + use non default log)

I understand that you prefer to focus on your fix and I'm more or less
suggesting a cleanup of logging. That's why I can do the first cleanup
patch if you are really not confortable with it. (I feel you could do it)
Just let me know.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-11 20:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-28 20:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " John Ousterhout
2016-09-30 15:01 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-10 22:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " John Ousterhout
2016-10-11  8:08   ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-11 16:30     ` John Ousterhout
2016-10-11 20:30       ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-10-11 21:46         ` John Ousterhout
2016-10-12  7:09           ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-11 22:16       ` Don Provan
2016-10-12  0:22         ` John Ousterhout
2016-10-12 19:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " John Ousterhout
2016-10-12 19:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " John Ousterhout
2016-10-12 19:47   ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-12 21:17     ` John Ousterhout
2016-10-13 20:03   ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=39898498.0kdAxWznnB@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ouster@cs.stanford.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).