[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131213175350.0c4a95d5@endymion.delvare>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:53:50 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wolfram@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Add message transfer tracepoints for I2C and SMBUS
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:05:36 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> wrote:
>
> > One significant difference between both implementations is that the old
> > one logs before the actual transfer, while yours logs afterward. While I
> > understand this allows you to log the result of the transfer, this also
> > means you'll miss the log if the actual transaction locks the system
> > (we've seen this before.) Something to think about...
>
> I could split each into three messages:
>
> - Write request (has params & data buffer)
> - Read request (has params but no data buffer)
> - Read reply (has data buffer only)
>
> It will make the transfer functions more complex, though, and will mean that,
> for i2c, you won't get all the replies to the messages in a batch in with the
> requests. I can also label the messages with the index number. Mostly I
> suspect this won't be a problem.
Fine with me, we can leave it as is and revisit if it ever is a
problem in practice.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists