On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 23:50:26 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT) > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 22:18:13 -0700 > > > > > From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This extends bridge fdb table tracepoints to also cover > > > learned fdb entries in the br_fdb_update path. Note that > > > unlike other tracepoints I have moved this to when the fdb > > > is modified because this is in the datapath and can generate > > > a lot of noise in the trace output. br_fdb_update is also called > > > from added_by_user context in the NTF_USE case which is already > > > traced ..hence the !added_by_user check. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Applied. > > > > Let's use dev->name for now and if the tooling can eventually > > do transparent ifindex->name then we can consider redoing > > a bunch of networking tracepoints. > > I agree! :-) > Agreed, but it is yet another case of tracepoints not having a stable ABI. There is no ABI guarantee on tracing, but it still makes for user complaints.
