@dmnks commented on this pull request.
A couple of questions:
1. We already know what messages (code & string) have been emitted in the log
context as they're stored in the `recs` member (currently a vector). Is there
any benefit of adding a new `seen` map, instead of turning `recs` into such a
map, adding a counter to `rpmlogRec_s` and using that?
2. Is there any use case for keying on an additional string rather than on the
actual log message?
3. Once we support non-global logging contexts, the `domain` would no longer be
needed. That is, all users/domains (e.g. `ts`) would get a separate log
context, instead of tracking them centrally in the global context. Is that
correct?
I see that this is meant to be a PoC kind of thing, and as such it looks fine
(some comments inline).
@pmatilai, any other opinion?
> @@ -412,3 +415,43 @@ void rpmlog (int code, const char *fmt, ...)
exit:
errno = saved_errno;
}
+
+int rpmlogOnce (uint64_t domain, const char * key, int code, const char *fmt,
...)
+{
+ int saved_errno = errno;
+ rpmlogCtx ctx = rpmlogCtxAcquire();
+ int newkey = 0;
+
+ if (ctx) {
+ wrlock lock(ctx->mutex);
+ newkey = !ctx->seen[domain][{code, key}]++;
Showcases the power of C++, nicely done! :smile:
> @@ -412,3 +415,43 @@ void rpmlog (int code, const char *fmt, ...)
exit:
errno = saved_errno;
}
+
+int rpmlogOnce (uint64_t domain, const char * key, int code, const char *fmt,
...)
+{
+ int saved_errno = errno;
+ rpmlogCtx ctx = rpmlogCtxAcquire();
+ int newkey = 0;
+
+ if (ctx) {
Is this check necessary? We don't seem to be doing it elsewhere in this file
(the global `ctx` is always returned).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3417#pullrequestreview-2405628199
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3417/review/2405628...@github.com>_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
