Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-17 Thread Jerin Jacob
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:57 PM David Marchand wrote: > > Hello Jerin, Hello David, > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:08 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > From the prototype onwards, Myself shuffled abound multiple times on > > the API name to satisfying > > names. > > > > If you would like to classify bas

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-17 Thread David Marchand
Hello Jerin, On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:08 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > From the prototype onwards, Myself shuffled abound multiple times on > the API name to satisfying > names. > > If you would like to classify based on the tracepoint object > dependency to a new header file, it is fine. > Let's go t

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-16 Thread Jerin Jacob
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:53 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 16/04/2020 18:08, Jerin Jacob: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:09 PM David Marchand > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:40 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking > > >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-16 Thread Thomas Monjalon
16/04/2020 18:08, Jerin Jacob: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:09 PM David Marchand > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:40 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking > > > > about who will use them? > > > > * rte_trace.h (rte_trace_ prefix f

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-16 Thread Jerin Jacob
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:09 PM David Marchand wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:40 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking > > > about who will use them? > > > * rte_trace.h (rte_trace_ prefix for all functions/macros/types) for > > > user

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-16 Thread David Marchand
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:40 PM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking > > about who will use them? > > * rte_trace.h (rte_trace_ prefix for all functions/macros/types) for > > users of the trace framework that want to > > * get the status of the

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-15 Thread Jerin Jacob
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:56 PM David Marchand wrote: > > Thanks Jerin for this new version. > New round of comments. Thanks for the review. > > - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking > about who will use them? > * rte_trace.h (rte_trace_ prefix for all functions/macro

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-15 Thread Thomas Monjalon
15/04/2020 15:26, David Marchand: > - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking > about who will use them? > * rte_trace.h (rte_trace_ prefix for all functions/macros/types) for > users of the trace framework that want to > * get the status of the whole trace subsystem, > *

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-15 Thread David Marchand
Thanks Jerin for this new version. New round of comments. - What do you think of splitting the API in two headers, thinking about who will use them? * rte_trace.h (rte_trace_ prefix for all functions/macros/types) for users of the trace framework that want to * get the status of the whole trace

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/33] DPDK Trace support

2020-04-13 Thread jerinj
From: Jerin Jacob This patch depends on http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/68119/ Depends-on:series-9295 v5 ~~ Following API rework based David and Thomas feedback. 1) Rename - "Shell pattern" to "Globbing pattern" 2) Remove the log "level" notion from trace library. 3) Remove rte_trace_global_[