On 2012-02-06 18:01, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > TRACE_DEBUG_SYSTEM = 7, > TRACE_DEBUG_PROGRAM = 8, > TRACE_DEBUG_PROCESS = 9, > TRACE_DEBUG_MODULE = 10, > TRACE_DEBUG_UNIT = 11, > TRACE_DEBUG_FUNCTION = 12, > TRACE_DEBUG_LINE = 13, (default for TRACEPOINT_EVENT) > TRACE_DEBUG = 14, (default for trace_printf) I still do not understand the difference and scope of theses level. Normally a log and debug level is specified in term of its importance. A "unit" or "function" is not an importance its a scope. Everything in a programme is part of a line, function, unit or module. It does not define how it's important. > I'm not sure about the choices for defaults though. We might want to > keep some room in the numbering for placing loglevels in between > TRACE_DEBUG_LINE and TRACE_DEBUG, as well as below DEBUG. I'm not sure > how to call those. These would be useful if we know for sure that a > tracepoint is higher-throughput that the default TRACEPOINT_LOGLEVEL. > I don't understand this idea of default? Am I obligated to use the loglevel? If I do not define a loglevel it's because I do not want to use them. I don't want to see a "default" loglevel associated to it.
To add to this last comment, having loglevel associated to the tracepoint can really be confusing to a new user of a tracer. If the new user try a tracer and see loglevel, he might thing this tool is just a complex log manager, which is not really the case. So I believe we should put the emphasis on the *optional* characteristic of this feature, and not advertise it in the default case. Yannick _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
