-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 549
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Implement logging of file descriptor opening and closing
- Loading branch information
1 parent
1fc3dbe
commit a84b6ae
Showing
56 changed files
with
896 additions
and
471 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This breaks the ability to compile against a system libev (as in the Fedora package of passenger). Could some more motivation on the changes to libev be given? Perhaps we can get libev to accept them upstream?
a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I brought this up with upstream - they seem skeptical that this kind of logging would be useful as the fds can change - http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/libev/2015q2/002526.html
a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have posted the motivation to the libev mailing list.
It's true that, in general, the fds can change. But in the specific way we are using libev, the fds don't change.
If upstream doesn't accept the patch, I recommend that you just build against our vendored libev.
a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@FooBarWidget but can you just make using of that ev-related modifications optional (to keep ability to build against system libev anyway)?
As I read your post in libev maillist, you're doing that in debug purposes, but in non-debug cases, I'd bet, it is unneeded to force user to compile against bundled libev every time, isn't it?
a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, sorry, I will not do that. Removing the debugging feature severely restricts our ability to troubleshoot unanticipated issues. Everything is fine when there are no issues, but when there are issues, we can't just tell users "yeah, recompile Passenger against our forked libev so that we can figure out what's going on". I do not consider the ability to build against upstream libev to be a strong enough case to remove the debugging features.
a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, I mean the opposite thing:
I don't say you should not build against patched libev at all. I mean that you can (just as you doing it now) by default compile against bundled libev/libuv. But when user explicitly set
USE_VENDORED_LIBEV=no
— then it would be nice to not call patched debug-onlyev_fd_stuff
in the code (so I actually mean «just add few#ifdef
's please»).The issue, for now, is in that fact, that even if user do
USE_VENDORED_LIBEV=no USE_VENDORED_LIBUV=no
, and he fully understands and takes responsibility about missing debug features, he still unable to compile against system libev 😞a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, that sounds fair. I've opened a ticket.
a84b6ae
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks ;)