On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 08:35 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > didn't differenciate them. we take all of these as CDB. This is > > wrong. > > > > I want to make it clearer and make UPIU trace in line with the > > Spec. > > what's more, how do you filter OSF, TM parameters with current > > UPIU > > trace? you take all of them as CDB? if so, I think, it's better to > > change parser. > > Indeed, it is just a small change, but breaking user-space is not an > acceptable approach. > Also, the upiu tracer was never meant to be human-readable: it just > dump the upiu, > Which contains all the info required to parse it anyway, > So breaking user-space just to making it more readable doesn't really > make sense? > > Looking at the previous 2 patches of this series, I was hoping that > you will do the same for > Command upiu, as well? > Again - same comment: if you are doing that need to change the str > not to break current parsers. > > Thanks, > Avri will not change original CDB format, just add new OSF, TM. the string format will not be change. The current the HDR and CDB in the send and complete trace are the same, I guess, you even didn't trace CDB in your parser, they cannot tell you the request execution result. Bean
