On 10/6/22 10:24, Ankur Dwivedi wrote:
Hi Andrew,
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Igor
Russkikh <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Jerin Jacob
Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; Maciej Czekaj [C]
<[email protected]>; Shijith Thotton <[email protected]>;
Srisivasubramanian Srinivasan <[email protected]>; Harman Kalra
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nithin
Kumar Dabilpuram <[email protected]>; Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda
<[email protected]>; Sunil Kumar Kori <[email protected]>; Satha
Koteswara Rao Kottidi <[email protected]>; Liron Himi
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Radha Chintakuntla
<[email protected]>; Veerasenareddy Burru <[email protected]>;
Sathesh B Edara <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Rasesh Mody
<[email protected]>; Shahed Shaikh <[email protected]>; Devendra
Singh Rawat <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ethdev: add trace points
External Email
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 9/29/22 13:29, Ankur Dwivedi wrote:
Add trace points for ethdev functions.
Signed-off-by: Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]>
[snip]
@@ -5867,6 +6010,7 @@ rte_eth_rx_metadata_negotiate(uint16_t port_id,
uint64_t *features)
{
struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
+ rte_eth_trace_rx_metadata_negotiate(port_id, features);
features are in/out, so it would be interesting to values, not just pointer and
both values: input and output.
[Ankur] Will add a emit line to display the uint64_t input value of features.
What about output?
RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
[snip]
diff --git a/lib/ethdev/version.map b/lib/ethdev/version.map index
3def7bfd24..e3d603cc9a 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/version.map
+++ b/lib/ethdev/version.map
@@ -288,6 +288,150 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
# added in 22.11
rte_flow_async_action_handle_query;
+ __rte_eth_trace_add_first_rx_callback;
Why is it in EXPERIMENTAL section, but not INTERNAL?
[Ankur] Because the functions for which trace is added are not internal
functions.
Sorry, but I don't understand. I agree that tracing of
public inline functions must be part of ABI, but why
everything else should be a part of ABI?
[snip]
INTERNAL
