On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:

> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:58PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com>
> >> 
> >> The packet_trace() call is not ideal in format_packet() as we would print
> >> a trace when a packet is formatted and (potentially) when the packet is
> >> actually send. This was no problem up until now because format_packet()
> >> was only used by one function. Fix it by moving the trace call into the
> >> function that actually sends the packet.
> > 
> > It looks like there are two functions: packet_write() and
> > packet_buf_write().
> I did not call trace in packet_buf_write() because this function does not
> perform any writes.

Yes, but then who is responsible for the trace? The caller?

And why is it a bad thing to do it some time other than writing? It is
if you format and then _don't_ write the packet, but the current callers
are not doing that.

> > Your patch only touches one of them, and it looks like we would fail to
> > trace many packets (e.g., see receive-pack.c:report(), which uses
> > packet_buf_write() and then write()s out the result).
> I see. But isn't it confusing if packet_buf_write() issues a trace call?
> If I just call this function then nothing happens at all. Shouldn't the
> trace call be made in receive-pack.c:report() ? Or shouldn't receive-pack
> let pkt-line.c perform the write calls?

How would report() do that without re-parsing each of the packets?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to