From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 809EB145A06 for ; Thu, 16 May 2024 18:01:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715882468; cv=none; b=I+qQ4ErvZvhTBhIxUwp/PVkSCuknQi+4BIs3coGIV5GEKPzVDySnqeAguLpylRmgMc/WtFdSEE8ICTFPBWoVQTq5y+loRN44VJS9u7g7h4dGxSQZe3ckL83CXBVqZ0GnIBMHoFFZztIfhCkCcX2Fz+ht6fg7Ychh1xOaXKLB/kI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715882468; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mEUneoyVN1dGOEomdrC+LpmXs1JtyCe4mmVGh4tRlYU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Z3O70mbBfPj1AzjRKrERG5FcduTiXqFr59GFlRKX2NHW66qCsox4A3gTZFW3jrFJxJ5D6yVaIuuY91auWCtbNApxjJKPfswLXk5WD2cEK7cOou3Tk8I2TSuINPxrrpv7nYXiK6j+pm1CjpR0hIREv+Lq0w3waj5k8uyMmTTa9Eo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=BRthRq/s; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="BRthRq/s" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9ECD211EB; Thu, 16 May 2024 14:01:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=mEUneoyVN1dGOEomdrC+LpmXs1JtyCe4mmVGh4 tRlYU=; b=BRthRq/s+7ZFWEBHCEAvn20plhdXiz72gzlru07pEl6Ra4mMDnA8JM M8Teu/JVE9Hn5YhSeJQP/v/csuzPJh6H8GchiRSyQgt2OOJUSveaqrQsHxzNnnrX PfXQ35wc9d05mWVinEmattYqfE2uCmjRGGNQfWggqDb/iXhFWzyW0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBD2211E9; Thu, 16 May 2024 14:01:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.153.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B01C211E6; Thu, 16 May 2024 14:01:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] refs: implement releasing ref storages In-Reply-To: (Karthik Nayak's message of "Thu, 16 May 2024 11:39:36 -0500") References: <282fbe35a7c9db715a8a805f93f9b465d42885a5.1715836916.git.ps@pks.im> Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 11:01:01 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 42047DAC-13AE-11EF-998B-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Karthik Nayak writes: >> +static void debug_release(struct ref_store *refs) >> +{ >> + struct debug_ref_store *drefs = (struct debug_ref_store *)refs; > > We should probably add a trace here, using `trace_printf_key()` A totally ignorant question. Should we be adding more traces with trace_* API instead of trace2_* API? If the latter aims to cover superset of use cases the former did, I was hoping that we can eventually deprecate the former, hence this question. Of course We could add a compatiblity layer that emulates trace_* API with a thin wrapper around trace2_* API, but if we do not add new callers, it may still be feasible to directly migrate the callers to use trace2_ API without having to invent such compatibility wrappers.