[lttng-dev] [RFC] LTTng-UST loglevels

[Matthew Khouzam]

This in my opinion makes a lot more sense and is internally consistent.
Can we pick and chose levels later on, such as only criticals and
notices without the ones in between?

On 12-02-06 06:01 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> From the feedback I got from other lttng developers and users in the
> last days, I envision going for loglevels such as:
>
>         TRACE_EMERG     = 0,
>         TRACE_ALERT     = 1,
>         TRACE_CRIT      = 2,
>         TRACE_ERR       = 3,
>         TRACE_WARNING   = 4,
>         TRACE_NOTICE    = 5,
>         TRACE_INFO      = 6,
>
>         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)
>
> The idea is that all the SYSTEM to LINE loglevels are actually sub-parts
> of the "debug" loglevel. It seems to make it clearer to keep the "DEBUG"
> as part of the names.
>
> 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.
> Same reasoning apply to trace_printf.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>