lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 23:37:30 +0100 From: Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com> To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>, "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>, "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>, "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>, "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>, "tomas.winkler@...el.com" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>, "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>, "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com> Cc: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Several changes for the UPIU trace On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 22:13 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > Bean Hi, > I support this series. > I think it is a good idea to print the response on complete, > But you need to change the prefix strings, otherwise you are breaking > the current parsers. > > Say that you have a trace log, generated sometime during 2020 using > the current upiu trace. > It would look something like: > "send" <request upiu> > "complete" <request upiu> > > And another log generated sometime during 2021 after your change is > merged: > "send" <request upiu> > "complete" < ****response upiu ****> > > The current parser won't be able to differentiate between those logs. > Just change the prefix strings to be "send_req" and "complete_rsp", > or something, > so the parsing tools that support the new format will be able to > differentiate it from the old one. Avri, I still don't understand, this change doesn't break you current parser. if you still trace "send", "complete", "CDB", "query_send/complte", they are still there, doesn't change. I suggest you just run on your system. see if there is conflict. Regarding your suggestion: This is not problem now, we just change this definition. do you mean just "send" and "complete" or all? #define UFS_CMD_TRACE_STRINGS \ EM(UFS_CMD_SEND, "send_req") \ EM(UFS_CMD_COMP, "complete_rsp") \ below also need add "req" and "rsp"? EM(UFS_DEV_COMP, "dev_complete_rsp") \ EM(UFS_QUERY_SEND, "query_send") \ EM(UFS_QUERY_COMP, "query_complete") \ EM(UFS_QUERY_ERR, "query_complete_err") \ EM(UFS_TM_SEND, "tm_send") \ EM(UFS_TM_COMP, "tm_complete") \ EM(UFS_TM_ERR, "tm_complete_err") > > Also, once the parser can differentiate the new format from the old, > whatever follows its fine: cdb / osf / tsf or whatever makes sense to > you. > > Thanks, > Avri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists