On 13 December 2017 at 20:23, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13/12/2017 at 12:16:03 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:04:26PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> >> > Also, I think we could try having only the time64_t in the ring buffer. >> > Maybe I'm wrong but I think tools reading that buffer can do the >> > conversion themselves. Maybe I don't understand correctly how >> > tracepoints work and this doesn't make sense, tell me. >> >> Tools reading the buffer can do the conversion themselves but it's also >> useful for users to just view the log directly via tracing/trace >> sometimes. OTOH the whole point is to be low overhead so... > > Yes, that is why I suggest keeping both representation in the printk > but only time64_t in the buffer. And this would be more convenient if we > add a way to pretty print a time64_t in vsprintf. OK. I will only keep time64_t in the buffer. Thanks for all your comments. -- Baolin.wang Best Regards
