On 26/10/2023 21:07, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 08:33:13PM +0100, Joao Martins wrote:
>> Sure. For the fourth patch, feel free to add Suggested-by and/or a Link,
>> considering it started on the other patches (if you also agree it is right).
>> The
>> patches ofc are enterily different, but at least I like to believe the ideas
>> initially presented and then subsequently improved are what lead to the
>> downtime
>> observability improvements in this series.
>
> Sure, I'll add that.
>
> If you like, I would be definitely happy to have Co-developed-by: with you,
> if you agree.
Oh, that's great, thanks!
> I just don't know whether that addressed all your need, and
> I need some patch like that for our builds.
I think it achieves the same as the other series. Or rather it re-implements it
but with less compromise on QAPI and made the tracepoints more 'generic' to even
other usecases and less specific to the 'checkpoint breakdown'. Which makes the
implementation simpler (like we don't need that array storing the checkpoint
timestamps) given that it's just tracing and not for QAPI.
Though while it puts more work over developing new tracing tooling for users, I
think it's a good start towards downtime breakdown "clearity" without trading
off maintenance.
Joao
