On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:01:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> +static void debug_release(struct ref_store *refs)
> >> +{
> >> + struct debug_ref_store *drefs = (struct debug_ref_store *)refs;
> >
> > We should probably add a trace here, using `trace_printf_key()`
>
> A totally ignorant question. Should we be adding more traces with
> trace_* API instead of trace2_* API? If the latter aims to cover
> superset of use cases the former did, I was hoping that we can
> eventually deprecate the former, hence this question. Of course We
> could add a compatiblity layer that emulates trace_* API with a thin
> wrapper around trace2_* API, but if we do not add new callers, it
> may still be feasible to directly migrate the callers to use trace2_
> API without having to invent such compatibility wrappers.
I cannot really answer this question as I ain't got much of a clue
around the tracing APIs. But in this case I think we should indeed add
this via `trace_printf_key()` so that we remain consistent with all the
other wrappers in the debug store. I'd argue that either all functions
here should use trace or trace2, but not a mixture.
Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
