On 9 Mar 2022, at 10:28, Chuck Lever III wrote:
On Mar 9, 2022, at 8:42 AM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 24 Feb 2022, at 21:09, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Thu, 2022-02-24 at 09:14 -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
There's a path through nfs4_lookup_revalidate that will now only
produce
this exit tracepoint. Does it need the _enter tracepoint added?
You're thinking about the nfs_lookup_revalidate_delegated() path?
The
_enter() tracepoint doesn't provide any useful information that
isn't
already provided by the _exit(), AFAICS.
No, the path through nfs4_do_lookup_revalidate(), reval_dentry: jump.
But I
agree there's not much value in the _enter() tracepoint. Maybe we
can
remove it, and _exit more like _done.
I am thinking about hearing back from folks about mis-matched
_enter() and
_exit() results, but also realize this is nit-picking.
I think the _enter / _exit trace points simply replaced
dprintk call sites which did much the same reporting.
Maybe we should consider replacing some of these because
we can rely on function call tracing instead.
But generally we like to see trace points that report
exceptional events rather than "I made it to this point".
The latter category of trace points are interesting
while code is under development but often loses its
value once the code is in the field.
Instead of "hearing back from folks" I should have said "I worry our QE
team
is going to discover and possibly report as a bug". :P Thanks for
filling
in Chuck!
Ben
