Re: [EXT] Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] Introduce mbox tracepoints for Octeontx2

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:59:45PM CEST, sundeep.lkml@gmail.com wrote:
>Hi Jakub,
>
>On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:29:04 +0000 Sunil Kovvuri Goutham wrote:
>> > > >No, there are 3 drivers registering to 3 PCI device IDs and there can
>> > > >be many instances of the same devices. So there can be 10's of instances of
>> > > AF, PF and VFs.
>> > >
>> > > So you can still have per-pci device devlink instance and use the tracepoint
>> > > Jakub suggested.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Two things
>> > - As I mentioned above, there is a Crypto driver which uses the same mbox APIs
>> >   which is in the process of upstreaming. There also we would need trace points.
>> >   Not sure registering to devlink just for the sake of tracepoint is proper.
>> >
>> > - The devlink trace message is like this
>> >
>> >    TRACE_EVENT(devlink_hwmsg,
>> >      . . .
>> >         TP_printk("bus_name=%s dev_name=%s driver_name=%s incoming=%d type=%lu buf=0x[%*phD] len=%zu",
>> >                   __get_str(bus_name), __get_str(dev_name),
>> >                   __get_str(driver_name), __entry->incoming, __entry->type,
>> >                   (int) __entry->len, __get_dynamic_array(buf), __entry->len)
>> >    );
>> >
>> >    Whatever debug message we want as output doesn't fit into this.
>>
>> Make use of the standard devlink tracepoint wherever applicable, and you
>> can keep your extra ones if you want (as long as Jiri don't object).
>
>Sure and noted. I have tried to use devlink tracepoints and since it
>could not fit our purpose I used these.

Why exactly the existing TP didn't fit your need?

>
>Thanks,
>Sundeep