> On Dec 19, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:12:27 +0000 > "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> One other area with logging is we do not time stamp our logs to the screen, >> which I feel is needed in some cases. The bigger area is figuring out where >> the log message came from and greping the code is a bit hard in some cases. >> >> I would like to see more information in the log output with file and line >> number of the log message with the time stamp. e.g. >> >> [timestamp] pid function_name(filename:line) logid: log message >> >> >> [ timestamp ] pid Function/file/line number Lid: Log message >> [ 14.039999] 49203 pkt_data_to_mbuf(pkt_mbufs.h:85) FNET: Failed append >> to mbuf too much data. >> >> - The time stamp is from gettimeofday seconds.usecs formatted. Using a >> relative time from application start. >> - The pid is the process ID or logical core id in fixed %5d or some fixed >> width. >> - Function/file/line number __func__(basename(__FILE__):__LINE__) using a >> fixed width like %30s does not work in all cases but most. >> - The lid is the LOG ID used(PMD, EAL, …) and then the original log message. >> >> The timestamp helps determine when the message was created, but could be >> turned off for normal use. The pid would be nice to know which thread or >> lcore created the message. The bigger one is the function/file/line is the >> one a would like to see most. Making some of the fields fixed length helps >> align the messages. >> >> What are your thoughts here? >> >> Regards, >> Keith >> > > Syslog is where most real applications send their logging, and it already does > timestamping.
Yes, I agree I forgot to add it was optional. The log messages currently go the screen for me and I still need to see the timestamp instead of looking in a log file. Regards, Keith
