Hi Masami, On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 22:03 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > 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/barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > > > rrrr > > > 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/barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > > > rrrr > > > 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? > Yeah, I think that makes more sense - unlike the counter, there's no sense that you may be missing some prior messages. Thanks, Tom > Thank you, > > >
