On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:49:11 -0500 Tom Zanussi <zanussi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 15:26 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 23:06:46 +0900 > > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 17:36:43 -0600 > > > > Changes from v2: > > > > > > > > - Added [n] numbering as suggested by Masami > > > > Hmm, this seems a bit different what I suggested. > > > > I'm trying to port probe event's error report on > > your error log, and I found that the number is > > just shifted as below. > > > > When I filled the log with errors. > > ============= > > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing # cat error_log > > [1] trace_kprobe: error: Invalid unsigned integer string > > Command: r10aa00:foo/bar vfs > > ^ > > ... > > > > [7] trace_kprobe: error: Group name must follow C naming convention > > Command: p:a-b/bar vfs_read > > ^ > > [8] trace_kprobe: error: Event name is too long > > Command: > > p:a/barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > > rrrrrrrrrrr vfs_read > > ============= > > > > And do one more error, > > > > ============= > > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing # cat error_log > > [1] trace_kprobe: error: Maxactive is too big > > Command: r0xaa00:foo/bar vfs > > > > .... > > > > [7] trace_kprobe: error: Event name is too long > > Command: > > p:a/barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > > rrrrrrrrrrr vfs_read > > ^ > > [8] trace_kprobe: error: Event name must follow C naming convention > > Command: p:a/bar.c vfs_read > > ^ > > ============= > > > > The number of logs are changed :( This can confuse users. > > I think it is better to keep the number as a unique number for > > each entry as below. > > > > Hmm, that makes sense, but I wonder if that will also confuse users, > when the log wraps around and no longer starts at [1] and there's no > way to retrieve the previous errors. It is OK, that is same as dmesg. If user needs to keep watching it, it should be dumped to disk by a daemon. > > I took your suggestion as a way mainly to clearly delineate each error, > since without the [number] or something similar, they all kind of run > together. > > Not sure what advantage numbering itself provides - would some other > non-numbered separator work? What about timestamp, similar to dmesg? Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
