Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:16:01 -0700 | From | Ira Weiny <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] cxl/mem: Implement Get Event Records command |
| |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 05:36:42PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:10:26 -0700 > Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:23:29PM -0700, Jiang, Dave wrote:
[snip]
> > > > > > And what gets printed > > > to the trace buffer can be decoded data constructed from those fields by the > > > kernel code. So with that you can have access both. > > > > > > > Fast assigning the entire buffer + decoded versions will roughly double the > > trace event size. > > > > Thinking through this a bit more there is a sticking point. > > > > The difficulty will be ensuring that any new field names are documented such > > that when user space starts to look at them they can determine if that data > > appears as a new field or as part of a reserved field. > > > > For example if user space needs to access data in the reserved data now it can > > simply decode it. However, when that data becomes a field it no longer is part > > of the reserved data. So what user space would need to do is look for the > > field first (ie know the field name) and then if it does not appear extract it > > from the reserved data. > > > > I'm now wondering if I've wasted my time decoding anything since the kernel > > does not need to know anything about these fields. Because the above scenario > > means that user space may get ugly over time. > > > > That said I don't think it will present any incompatibilities. So perhaps we > > are ok? > > I favor decoding current record in kernel and packing it appropriately. > If that means we don't provide some new data from a future version then such > is life - the kernel needs upgrading. That information is unlikely to be > crucial - it's probably just more detail.
Dave, Dan, and I discussed this further today. Dan expressed the same opinion. So I'm going to remove all the reserved fields from the next version.
Thanks, Ira
| |