Re: Expanding control over debuginfod usage from dwfl [was: Re: Questions regarding debuginfod.h API]

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>]

Hi -

> > Thus my proposal, and RFC:
> > 
> > ```
> > /* Let us mirror the debuginfod progressfn for dwfl and forward it to
> >    the internal debuginfod client, if available.
> >    This way, dwfl's usage of debuginfod can stay optional and we would not
> >    need to link to debuginfod directly from code using dwfl.
> >  */
> > typedef int (*dwfl_debuginfod_progressfn_t)(Dwfl *dwfl, long a, long b);
> > extern void dwfl_set_debuginfod_progressfn(Dwfl *dwfl,
> > 			           dwfl_debuginfod_progressfn_t fn);
> > ```

(Don't quite see how this extension would let you disable or enable
debuginfod support on a given dwfl.  By the time a progressfn is
called, some debuginfod traffic would be attempted.)n


> Alternately:
> [...]
> > /* We could just give full access to the internal client
> >    but doing so may clash with future usages of e.g.
> >    debuginfod_{set,get}_user_data in dwfl and users of dwfl.
> >    Otherwise, this is obviously easiest and gives most flexibility.
> >    We just need to forward get_client from debuginfod-client.c
> >  */
> > extern debuginfod_client *dwfl_debuginfod_client (Dwfl *);
> > ```
> > What do you all think?

In order to -influence- things, would you not need to -change- the
client somehow?  We don't have debuginfod-client apis to disable or
reconfigure any particular client object.  Such an API wouldn't let
you replace it with a hook object of your own either.


So, dunno, could you perhaps remind us what your current usage
interests are?

To enable/disable it on a per-dwfl basis?  If yes, and if statically,
maybe a new Dwfl_Callbacks option for .find_debuginfo() could be your
ticket: a dwfl_standard_find_debuginfo variant sans debuginfod at the
end.


- FChE