> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjac...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 11.42 > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 7:10 PM Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > wrote: > > > > Some applications want to omit the trace feature. > > Either to reduce the memory footprint, to reduce the exposed attack > > surface, or for other reasons. > > > > This patch adds an option in rte_config.h to include or omit trace in > the > > build. Trace is included by default. > > > > Omitting trace works by omitting all trace points. > > For API and ABI compatibility, the trace feature itself remains. > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > > --- > > v4: > > * Added check for generic trace enabled when registering trace points, > in > > RTE_INIT. (Jerin Jacob) > > * Test application uses function instead of macro to check if generic > > trace is enabled. (Jerin Jacob) > > * Performance test application uses function to check if generic trace > is > > enabled. > > v3: > > * Simpler version with much fewer ifdefs. (Jerin Jacob) > > v2: > > * Added/modified macros required for building applications with trace > > omitted. > > > > > +/** > > + * @internal > > Since it is used in app/test. Can we remove it as internal and make > symbol as rte_trace_point_is_enabled
I don't think we should make functions public if only used for test purposes. Do you think it is useful for normal usage too? Does rte_trace_is_enabled() not suffice? > > > + * > > + * Test if the tracepoint compile-time option is enabled. > > + * > > + * @return > > + * true if tracepoint enabled, false otherwise. > > + */ > > +__rte_experimental > > +static __rte_always_inline bool > > +__rte_trace_point_generic_is_enabled(void) > > Do we need to keep _generic_ Other internal functions have _generic_ too, so I added it. If we decide to make it public, I agree _generic_ should be removed. > > Rest looks good to me.
