On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> > >> > >> The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print > >> a trace when a packet is formatted and (potentially) when the packet is > >> actually send. This was no problem up until now because format_packet() > >> was only used by one function. Fix it by moving the trace call into the > >> function that actually sends the packet. > > > > It looks like there are two functions: packet_write() and > > packet_buf_write(). > > I did not call trace in packet_buf_write() because this function does not > perform any writes.
Yes, but then who is responsible for the trace? The caller? And why is it a bad thing to do it some time other than writing? It is if you format and then _don't_ write the packet, but the current callers are not doing that. > > Your patch only touches one of them, and it looks like we would fail to > > trace many packets (e.g., see receive-pack.c:report(), which uses > > packet_buf_write() and then write()s out the result). > > I see. But isn't it confusing if packet_buf_write() issues a trace call? > If I just call this function then nothing happens at all. Shouldn't the > trace call be made in receive-pack.c:report() ? Or shouldn't receive-pack > let pkt-line.c perform the write calls? How would report() do that without re-parsing each of the packets? -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
