From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D171C433ED for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4299D610E6 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235015AbhDGQyu (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:54:50 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:60446 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1354368AbhDGQys (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:54:48 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 371EE60232; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:54:32 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Tzvetomir Stoyanov Cc: Linux Trace Devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] libtracefs: Implement tracefs_warning() Message-ID: <20210407125432.2de1382d@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20210407051154.2422172-1-tz.stoyanov@gmail.com> <20210407121928.464045ee@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:46:43 +0300 Tzvetomir Stoyanov wrote: > I understood that idea from your comments, but have a few concerns: > > 1. That way we create a dependency, not logical to the user of the libraries. What dependency? > 2. That print functionality is not something logically specific to the > libtraceevent, it is not related to the main purpose of this library. Not sure what you mean by that? > 3. A weak function specific to each library is a more straightforward > way and the user has the flexibility to control warnings per library. > The overhead to add library specific wrappers to those weak functions > is not so big. It's an unnecessary burden. You may add libtracecmd, and want to capture all the warnings and overwrite tracecmd_warning(), but then see that there's other warnings coming from libtraceevent and libtracefs that you never included (because libtracecmd pulled them in). And it's not obvious how to deal with them. -- Steve