On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:52:43 +0000 "Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen, > > The commit message may be misleading, the logging interface doesn't change > here. Note also that I reuse existing trace point framework for some of the > error logging when relevant (see previous commit). > Here the scope for that buffer is more limited, not a new logging method > really (the commit message is misleading). > The queue_ops_dump() already provides api to dump device specific information > related to queue into file (logging in real time is not an option) based on > information already in PMD memory. > This new buffer is purely there to add storage for the string out of > rte_bbdev_ops_param_string() for failed operation on that queue, so that > extend that capture as this info is not stored by PMD. > The name of the buffer could be renamed probably, or I could store copy of > the actual operation instead of the string in case that makes a difference > for you. > > I guess it would possible to move this to trace point but I thought it would > be quite convoluted. That information would fits nicely in the queue dump > capture, and this would require adding trace point for each operation type (I > don't believe it can manage arbitrary string) and would be a bit of an > unconventional use of trace point. > > Any thought? > > Thanks > Nic > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 3:24 PM > > To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; maxime.coque...@redhat.com; > > hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan <hernan.var...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] baseband/acc: add internal logging > > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 14:55:19 -0800 > > Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Adds internal buffer for more flexible logging. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> > > > > Inventing another device specific error log seems like a short sighted > > concept. > > Why doesn't existing DPDK logging work well enough? > My feedback is that why can't you just use DEBUG logging for this.
