Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 07:21:21PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > At this point, I would say that any of the 2 approaches are an > > improvement over the current code. I'm also unconvinced that we have to > > have support for tweaks, > > But do you have any good argument for depriving

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

Hi - Original Message - > > > (fwiw, I prefer the shorter version…) > > Remember that the dump only shows up in case of crash. > > Are you arguing problems are easier to debug with less data? Yes, less noise, but relevant data. Saying that becuase your short version is already full of

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

> On 14 Jun 2017, at 19:53, Marc-André Lureau > wrote: > > Hi > > - Original Message - c) Bugs which we have to be able to reproduce, because there is no useful information in the debug log, e.g.

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

Hi - Original Message - > >> c) Bugs which we have to be able to reproduce, because there is no > >> useful information in the debug log, e.g. > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017261. Here, we know an > >> assertion failed, but nothing about what happened to get there, so

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

> On 14 Jun 2017, at 17:06, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:44:49AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: >> >>> On 13 Jun 2017, at 12:17, Marc-André Lureau >>> wrote: >>> >> - Better memory locality (not

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:44:49AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > On 13 Jun 2017, at 12:17, Marc-André Lureau > > wrote: > > > > >> - Better memory locality (not wasting a whole cache line for a single flag) > > > > minor, because log is not for hot

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

Hi, On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:44:49AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > On 13 Jun 2017, at 12:17, Marc-André Lureau > > wrote: > > >> - Better memory locality (not wasting a whole cache line for a single flag) > > > > minor, because log is not for hot

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

> On 13 Jun 2017, at 12:17, Marc-André Lureau > wrote: > >> - Better memory locality (not wasting a whole cache line for a single flag) > > minor, because log is not for hot traces. My experience differs from yours, and as a result, the idea that “log is not

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

> On 13 Jun 2017, at 11:41, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: >>> Let's first see if we manage to add useful debug logs to both the client and the server, then we can look into adding this :) >>

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

Hi - Original Message - > Global declarations pros: > - Obeys the DRY principle, as opposed to WET category declarations > (e.g. SPICE_LOG_CATEGORY_DECLARE vs. SPICE_LOG_CATEGORY) True, but SPICE_LOG_CATEGORY_DECLARE should not be needed, I'd rather remove it. > - Makes it possible to

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

Hi, On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:42:27AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > - Original Message - > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:45:20AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > > 5. The spice_log_init deals with hard-coded variables in a > > > > hard-coded way. I purposely had a

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

> On 13 Jun 2017, at 09:59, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > I have strange feelings about this series. > > First you removed most of logging test and change the entirely logging. > This is for me an enough reason for a nack. Usually the test define > the behaviour of the API (in

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > >> Let's first see if we manage to add useful debug logs to both the client > >> and the server, then we can look into adding this :) > > I agree. I was explaining why I had made a choice to have a dedicated >

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

> On 13 Jun 2017, at 10:42, Marc-André Lureau > wrote: > > Hi > > - Original Message - >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:45:20AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: 5. The spice_log_init deals with hard-coded variables in a hard-coded way. I

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

Hi - Original Message - > I have strange feelings about this series. > > First you removed most of logging test and change the entirely logging. > This is for me an enough reason for a nack. Usually the test define > the behaviour of the API (in this case logging) and the fact you have >

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:59:06AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > I have strange feelings about this series. > > First you removed most of logging test and change the entirely logging. > This is for me an enough reason for a nack. Usually the test define > the behaviour of the API (in this case

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:45:20AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > 5. The spice_log_init deals with hard-coded variables in a > > hard-coded way. I purposely had a function taking a string, and > > called either with env vars or command line options. I was thinking > > long-term about

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:32:38PM +, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:11 PM Christophe de Dinechin > wrote: > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2017, at 10:19, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > > > From: Marc-André Lureau

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

I have strange feelings about this series. First you removed most of logging test and change the entirely logging. This is for me an enough reason for a nack. Usually the test define the behaviour of the API (in this case logging) and the fact you have to change a lot means that the new one is

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

> On 12 Jun 2017, at 10:19, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Marc-André Lureau > > Hi, > > This is a RFC series to clean-up Spice logging infrastructure to fully > rely on glib g_log & g_log_structured if available, and add logging > categories. It is

[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-common 0/4] RFC: add structured logging and log category

From: Marc-André Lureau Hi, This is a RFC series to clean-up Spice logging infrastructure to fully rely on glib g_log & g_log_structured if available, and add logging categories. It is thus a counter-proposal to Christophe D. "RFC: Lightweight tracing mechanism",