On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:54:28AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:48:01AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > As another thought, did you consider using dynamic debug for this, or is that > > too much trickiness? Might be nice since usually a bug reporter won't have > > a kernel built with CONFIG_EXT4_DEBUG . . . > > I had assumed that the long term direction was to use tracepoints, > which also has the advantage of not requiring kernels built with > CONFIG_EXT4_DEBUG. > > Hmm.... one thing though is if we want bug reporters to use > tracepoints (as opposed to just developers), we'll need to have some > pre-made shell scripts to make it easy for non-developers to enable > tracepoints for various problems. FYI, we have a quick outline of how to gather a basic event trace using trace-cmd in the XFS FAQ for this purpose: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F If a more complex/finer grained trace is required to further isolate the problem, we generally then tell the user exactly what to run as the events/devices that need to be traced are case-specific. Seeing the users are already familiar with the basic tracing technique at this point it seems to work fine... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
