On 15-10-06 01:14 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:47:09PM CEST, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote: >> On 15-10-05 08:35 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:29:09PM CEST, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On 15-10-05 08:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>> Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:58:42PM CEST, and...@lunn.ch wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:55:42PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>>>> Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:49:41PM CEST, and...@lunn.ch wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Are you referring here to messages of the EMAD protocol ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know nothing about this protocol..... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does it at least use standard Ethernet framing? Source and Destination >>>>>>>> header and an EtherType which mean EMAD? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yep, but that does not really matter. I believe we should find debugging >>>>>>> interface which is protocol agnostic. Just arbitrary messages >>>>>>> monitoring. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jiri >>>>>> >>>>>> O.K, it is just that you mentioned wireshark. Passing the frames to >>>>>> network interface taps would make this trivial. >>>>> >>>>> That is true. But using netlink+nlmon would do the same. >>>> >>>> Also I guess if you go this direction you want to make it generic >>>> enough for any drivers to use it to snoop software/firmware msgs. This >>>> is common across many devices. >>> >>> Yes, definitelly, this should be something generic to be usable for >>> every device type. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> In the past though I've just used ethtool dump commands and some >>>> "scripts" on top of this to debug devices. And when it got really >>>> bad wrote some throw away code to debug my issue. I guess it might >>>> be nice to have something in the kernel to improve this but have >>>> you considered using the tracing features that already exist? >>> >>> Which ones do you have in mind? >>> >> >> I was thinking something like kprobes+bpf to dump a trace and >> then a lua script in wireshark to parse the input and pretty >> print it for users. This might get you good-enough support without >> having to carry it around in the kernel just so we can debug >> the devices. We could build some libs/pkgs around it in userspace >> and get it published somewhere so we can all work on it together. > > Well, I was thinking rather about some standard interface, not dependent > on actual kernel internals. >
Sure just throwing out an idea. I suspect whatever interface you have will include the vendor-id or some other identifier and a set of parsers in user space to pretty print the msg. .John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
