[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] ethdev: move error checking macros to header
Richardson, Bruce
bruce.richardson at intel.com
Mon Nov 9 15:02:28 CET 2015
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 1:39 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] ethdev: move error checking macros
> to header
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:22:27PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:10:07PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 04:09:18PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I won't argue against this as it's obviously more complex than the
> original
> > > > method, however note that users of the RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE() macro
> do not
> > > > have to modify their code. They shouldn't care about the
> implementation.
> > > >
> > > > Also note that we can do much cleaner code if we drop the all macros
> > > > implementation using a (much easier to debug) static inline
> function,
> > > > only perhaps with a wrapper macro that provides __LINE__, __func__
> and
> > > > __FILE__ as arguments. Nontrival code shouldn't be done in macros
> anyway.
> > > >
> > > Getting something working with __FILE__ and probably __LINE__ would be
> easy enough
> > > with a helper macro, but __func__ is not so easy as it's not a
> preprocessor symbol
> > > [since the pre-processor has no idea what function you are in].
> > >
> > > However, using func, here is the best I've come up with so far. It's
> not that
> > > pretty, but it's probably easier to work with than the macro version.
> > >
> > > #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG
> > > -#define RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE(fmt, args...) \
> > > - RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "%s: " fmt, __func__, ## args)
> > > +#define RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE(...) \
> > > + rte_pmd_debug_trace(__func__, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > +
> > > +static inline void
> > > +rte_pmd_debug_trace(const char *func_name, const char *fmt, ...)
> > > +{
> > > + static __thread char buffer[128];
> > > + char *out_buf = buffer;
> > > + unsigned count;
> > > + va_list ap;
> > > +
> > > + count = snprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), "%s: %s", func_name,
> fmt);
> > > + if (count >= sizeof(buffer)) { // truncated output
> > > + char *new_buf = malloc(count + 1);
> > > + if (new_buf == NULL) // no memory, just print 128
> chars
> > > + goto print_buffer;
> > > + snprintf(new_buf, count + 1, "%s: %s", func_name,
> fmt);
> > > + va_start(ap, fmt);
> > > + rte_vlog(RTE_LOG_ERR, RTE_LOGTYPE_PMD, buffer, ap);
> > > + va_end(ap);
> > > + free(new_buf);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > +print_buffer:
> > > + va_start(ap, fmt);
> > > + rte_vlog(RTE_LOG_ERR, RTE_LOGTYPE_PMD, out_buf, ap);
> > > + va_end(ap);
> > > +}
> > > #else
> > > #define RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE(fmt, args...)
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > Comments or improvements?
>
> Such a function shouldn't malloc() anything. The entire line should fit on
> the stack (crashing is fine if it does not, then it's probably a bug). We
> did something in two passes along these lines in mlx5_defs.h (not pretty
> but
> quite useful):
>
> /* Allocate a buffer on the stack and fill it with a printf format
> string. */
> #define MKSTR(name, ...) \
> char name[snprintf(NULL, 0, __VA_ARGS__) + 1]; \
> \
> snprintf(name, sizeof(name), __VA_ARGS__)
>
> Untested but I guess modifying that function accordingly would look like:
>
> static inline void
> rte_pmd_debug_trace(const char *func_name, const char *fmt, ...)
> {
> va_list ap;
> va_start(ap, fmt);
>
> static __thread char buffer[vsnprintf(NULL, 0, fmt, ap)];
>
> va_end(ap);
> va_start(ap, fmt);
> vsnprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), fmt, ap);
> va_end(ap);
> rte_log(RTE_LOG_ERR, RTE_LOGTYPE_PMD, "%s: %s", func_name,
> buffer);
> }
>
Looks a much better option.
>From this, though, I assume then that we are only looking to support the -pedantic flag in conjuction with c99 mode or above. Supporting -pedantic with the pre-gcc-5 versions won't allow that to work though, as variably sized arrays only came in with c99, and were gnu extensions before that.
Regards,
/Bruce
More information about the dev
mailing list