Hi Maxime, I believe that for 25.03 we can just apply the first 2 commits of the serie.
For the last commit, it will take more time to try your suggestion out, we can do this in subsequent release. Does that sound okay with you? Thanks Nic > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 12:52 AM > To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Chautru, Nicolas > <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Vargas, Hernan > <hernan.var...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] baseband/acc: add internal logging > > Hi Nicolas, > > On 2/7/25 10:52 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > Hi Nicolas, > > > > On 1/24/25 7:00 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> 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? > > > > I think the introduction of trace points in patch 2 is a good > > addition, and could be extended further to not just emit a simple > > string but also the necessary values to enable debugging (basically > > what you write in the buffers). > > > > It would have the advantage of having the different traces to be > > synchronized (bbdev and acc ones), and also would have less > > performance impact. > > What do you think of this proposal? > how do we proceed for v25.03? > > Thanks, > Maxime > > >>> 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. > > > > Or indeed could use the existing logging mechanism. > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > Maxime
