Re: [PATCHv2] tracing/events: Add bounce tracing to swiotbl

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 25/09/13 18:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:04:17PM +0100, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I haven't got a reply in the past 2 weeks, so I would like to bump
>>> the patch, just to make sure it haven't fell off the radar.
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I have this in my queue to put on 3.13 as it is past the merge
>window.
>> .. with that in mind:
>>
>>
>> .. snip..
>>>> +	TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
>>>> +		"size=%zu swiotlb_force=%x",
>>>> +		__get_str(dev_name),
>>>> +		__entry->dma_mask,
>>>> +		(unsigned long long)__entry->dev_addr,
>>>> +		__entry->size,
>>>> +		__entry->swiotlb_force)
>>
>> Would it make sense to do something like this:
>>
>> 		__entry->swiotlb_force ? "swiotlb_force" : "")
>>
>
>I would then rather do:
>
>+	TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
>+		"size=%zu swiotlb_force=",
>+               __entry->swiotlb_force ? " yes" : "no",
>+		__get_str(dev_name),
>
>Or do you mean?:
>
>+	TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
>+		"size=%zu",
>+               __entry->swiotlb_force ? " swiotlb_force" : "",
>+		__get_str(dev_name),
>
>This one doesn't tell you explicitly if swiotlb_force is NOT set, maybe
>
>that's not so good? And adds a bit of complexity to your grep regexp?
>Either way is fine with me, but I think "swiotlb_force=0|1" is also 
>pretty straightforward to understand, and I guess it makes printk 
>slightly faster (I assume the conditional operator gives a little bit
>of 
>overhead)
>
>Regards,
>
>Zoli

I was thinking it would be good to print the swiotlb-force only when it is enabled. So your second one would be it. 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/