Hi guys, :) On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:49:24AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:34:34 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:44:32 -0400 > > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:24:34 -0500 > > > Tom Zanussi <tom.zanu...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, I agree - I'd rather get it right than get it in now. I thought > > > > this made sense, and was based on input from Masami, which I may have > > > > misinterpreted, but I'll wait for some more ideas about the best way to > > > > do this. > > > > > > Too bad we are not closer to November, as this would actually be a good > > > Plumbers topic. Maybe it's not that important and we should wait until > > > then. I'd like to get some brain storming ideas out before we decide on > > > anything, and this is something I believe is better done face to face > > > than over email. > > > > OK, sounds good for me too :) > > My point was that printk buffer is not good place for the parser error > > of ftrace, nor each sub-features (like hist, trigger, probe_events etc.) > > has different place to show it. I just want to unify the user experience > > over the ftrace UI. > > I totally agree. I just want to make sure that whatever we come up with > will be well thought out. Perhaps we can wait till November to talk > about it.
I'm not sure I can go to LPC this year, but definitely interested in improving error logging for tracing. Thanks, Namhyung
