Re: [PATCH RFC] rdma/ib: Add trace point macros to display human-readable values

Leon Romanovsky
2017-11-02T16:34:11Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:18:41PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 2017, at 6:01 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > These can be shared with all kernel ULPs, and more can easily be
> > added as needed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> > include/trace/events/rdma.h | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 128 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 include/trace/events/rdma.h
> >
> > Hi-
> >
> > I'm putting together a series of patches for v4.16 (or later) that
> > add static ftrace trace points to the RPC-over-RDMA client imple-
> > mentation. As part of that effort, I've constructed some trace point
> > helpers that might be useful for other kernel ULPs.
> >
> > So far this patch adds just helpers that xprtrdma needs. It is not
> > complete, but additional helpers can be introduced as they are
> > needed.
> >
> > I'd like to hear comments about these, or please let me know if
> > such helpers already exist and where xprtrdma can find them.
>
> Now that the question of whether new trace points will be allowed
> has been answered...
>
> The helpers that are used for displaying errors in the kernel
> log display the spelled out text, not the symbolic name of the
> error code, as is done here.
>
> Would the community prefer long-form text or symbolic error names
> in trace reports?

IMHO, short names are preferred. It is intended for the developers who
have access to the code, so anyway they will check the meaning if
necessary.

Thanks