The "-V" (verbose) command line option is nearly completely redundant
with "io" tracing. Just the time of the printed data is a little bit
different, while the tracing is more informative.

Remove the verbose option.

Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
 tools/xenstored/core.c | 20 ++------------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/xenstored/core.c b/tools/xenstored/core.c
index 8bd4098cb6..3e31e74933 100644
--- a/tools/xenstored/core.c
+++ b/tools/xenstored/core.c
@@ -76,7 +76,6 @@ static int sock = -1;
 int orig_argc;
 char **orig_argv;
 
-static bool verbose = false;
 LIST_HEAD(connections);
 int tracefd = -1;
 static bool recovery = true;
@@ -329,11 +328,6 @@ static bool write_messages(struct connection *conn)
 		return true;
 
 	if (out->inhdr) {
-		if (verbose)
-			xprintf("Writing msg %s (%.*s) out to %p\n",
-				sockmsg_string(out->hdr.msg.type),
-				out->hdr.msg.len,
-				out->buffer, conn);
 		ret = conn->funcs->write(conn, out->hdr.raw + out->used,
 					 sizeof(out->hdr) - out->used);
 		if (ret < 0)
@@ -2134,11 +2128,6 @@ static bool process_delayed_message(struct delayed_request *req)
 
 static void consider_message(struct connection *conn)
 {
-	if (verbose)
-		xprintf("Got message %s len %i from %p\n",
-			sockmsg_string(conn->in->hdr.msg.type),
-			conn->in->hdr.msg.len, conn);
-
 	conn->is_stalled = false;
 	/*
 	 * Currently, Live-Update is not supported if there is active
@@ -2701,8 +2690,7 @@ static void usage(void)
 "  -R, --no-recovery       to request that no recovery should be attempted when\n"
 "                          the store is corrupted (debug only),\n"
 "  -K, --keep-orphans      don't delete nodes owned by a domain when the\n"
-"                          domain is deleted (this is a security risk!)\n"
-"  -V, --verbose           to request verbose execution.\n");
+"                          domain is deleted (this is a security risk!)\n");
 }
 
 
@@ -2726,7 +2714,6 @@ static struct option options[] = {
 	{ "timeout", 1, NULL, 'w' },
 	{ "no-recovery", 0, NULL, 'R' },
 	{ "keep-orphans", 0, NULL, 'K' },
-	{ "verbose", 0, NULL, 'V' },
 	{ "watch-nb", 1, NULL, 'W' },
 #ifndef NO_LIVE_UPDATE
 	{ "live-update", 0, NULL, 'U' },
@@ -2847,7 +2834,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 	orig_argv = argv;
 
 	while ((opt = getopt_long(argc, argv,
-				  "E:F:H::KNPS:t:A:M:Q:q:T:RVW:w:U",
+				  "E:F:H::KNPS:t:A:M:Q:q:T:RW:w:U",
 				  options, NULL)) != -1) {
 		switch (opt) {
 		case 'E':
@@ -2884,9 +2871,6 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 		case 'K':
 			keep_orphans = true;
 			break;
-		case 'V':
-			verbose = true;
-			break;
 		case 'W':
 			hard_quotas[ACC_WATCH].val = get_optval_uint(optarg);
 			break;
-- 
2.35.3

Hi Juergen,

On 13/11/2023 12:43, Juergen Gross wrote:
> The "-V" (verbose) command line option is nearly completely redundant
> with "io" tracing. Just the time of the printed data is a little bit
> different, while the tracing is more informative.

The current position of trace_io() is a bit annoying in write_messages() 
because it will only be called once the message has been fully written 
to the ring. Can we consider adding a trace_*() when we are about to 
write? (Or maybe queue the message?)


In any case, I think it is odd to enable verbose and tracing separately. 
So with or without:

Reviewed-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

On 14.11.23 22:01, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> On 13/11/2023 12:43, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> The "-V" (verbose) command line option is nearly completely redundant
>> with "io" tracing. Just the time of the printed data is a little bit
>> different, while the tracing is more informative.
> 
> The current position of trace_io() is a bit annoying in write_messages() because 
> it will only be called once the message has been fully written to the ring. Can 
> we consider adding a trace_*() when we are about to write? (Or maybe queue the 
> message?)

I'll address that in a future patch by making trace_io() a little bit more
flexible. In write_messages() I'm planning to either write a single trace
record in case the message could be sent in one go, or split entries for the
start and the end of writing the message.

> In any case, I think it is odd to enable verbose and tracing separately. So with 
> or without:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>

Thanks,


Juergen