On 14-08-12 11:13 PM, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:Precisely, and that is what my patchset is trying to address.
Thank you for your comment.
(2014/08/08 22:07), Douglas Gilbert wrote:
On 14-08-08 01:50 PM, Yoshihiro YUNOMAE wrote:
This patch set introduces new traceevents in order to output
messages. Current SCSI printk messages in upstream kernel can be
divided by and
mixed with other messages. Even if each error message has its
sometimes we can easily be lost in mixed logs because the message's
is separated from it's body. To avoid it, I'd like to use
store error messages into the ftrace or perf buuffer, because
are atomically commited to the buffer.
In this patch set, all printk messages are removed based on a local
discussion with Hannes, but I think printk messages should be kept
users don't enable traceevents and rsyslog can store as files.
However, if printk of logging branch is kept, the messages are
it can induce stack overflow by using local buffer(*1).
So, my suggestion is follows:
Keeps current implemntation of upstream kernel.
The messages are divided and can be mixed, but all users can
messages without any settings.
To get the complete messages, we can use ftrace or perf (or
Users can always understand correct messages, but they need to
set up the
This patch set is based on Hannes' logging branch:
[1/10] ~ [6/10]: just cleanup for logging branch
[7/10] ~ [10/10]: introduce new traceevents
Any comments are welcome!
In sg3_utils there are now string yielding equivalents
to the sense buffer "print" functions. They take a form
char * get_sense_str(const unsigned char * sense_buffer,
int sb_len, int blen, char * b);
So this just does the hard work of decoding the sense buffer
(or saying it is invalid) the result of which it places in
buffer 'b'. And 'b' is returned (so this function can be in
the arguments of a driver's printing function).
Adding such string functions would give other parts of the
SCSI subsystem the capability of tailoring their own
messages that include sense data information.
Existing sense buffer "print" function could be kept and
implemented using the newer "_str" variants. Would that
be worth the trouble?
I have already sent the idea using local buffer on this February,
but it was rejected by James (*1). By using stack region for local
buffer, stack overflow can occur. So, I implemented this feature
to atomically output an error message with device information.
In the "_str" variants that I referred to, the caller provides
the buffer and its length. The responsibility of the
implementation of those "_str" variants is to use that
buffer, not exceed it, and make sure that it is null terminated
Can't see any inherent threat to the stack size there, and if
there is then that is just bad design by the caller.
The advantage of the "_str" variants is that the caller can
supply context and print/log a more useful message, perhaps
including the caller's __func__ . That message could include
sense information (perhaps truncated to 128 bytes, say),
and be output as a single unit.
IMO too many log messages are multi-line and in a noisy,
misbehaving system those messages can be interleaved
with other "noise" making them difficult to decipher.