Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing/mmiotrace: Clean up coding style and redundant debug logs

From: Steven Rostedt

Date: Fri Aug 07 2026 - 20:51:03 EST


On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:50:19 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Clean up coding style issues in trace_mmiotrace.c:
> - Remove redundant pr_debug() entries in tracer callbacks.
> - Fix opening brace placement for mmio_tracer.
> - Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare 'unsigned'.
> - Add missing blank lines after local variable declarations.
>
> Assisted-by: Antigravity:gemini-3.6-flash
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace_mmiotrace.c | 16 +++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_mmiotrace.c b/kernel/trace/trace_mmiotrace.c
> index 77120d467e11..ce16e1c53d12 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_mmiotrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_mmiotrace.c
> @@ -36,7 +36,6 @@ static void mmio_reset_data(struct trace_array *tr)
>
> static int mmio_trace_init(struct trace_array *tr)
> {
> - pr_debug("in %s\n", __func__);

So how are these redundant?

Are there pr_debug() prints elsewhere?

> mmio_trace_array = tr;
>
> mmio_reset_data(tr);
> @@ -46,8 +45,6 @@ static int mmio_trace_init(struct trace_array *tr)
>
> static void mmio_trace_reset(struct trace_array *tr)
> {
> - pr_debug("in %s\n", __func__);
> -
> disable_mmiotrace();
> mmio_reset_data(tr);
> mmio_trace_array = NULL;
> @@ -55,7 +52,6 @@ static void mmio_trace_reset(struct trace_array *tr)
>
> static void mmio_trace_start(struct trace_array *tr)
> {
> - pr_debug("in %s\n", __func__);
> mmio_reset_data(tr);
> }
>
> @@ -113,6 +109,7 @@ static void mmio_pipe_open(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> static void mmio_close(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> {
> struct header_iter *hiter = iter->private;
> +
> destroy_header_iter(hiter);
> iter->private = NULL;
> }

This is fine.

> @@ -170,7 +167,7 @@ static enum print_line_t mmio_print_rw(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> struct trace_seq *s = &iter->seq;
> unsigned long long t = ns2usecs(iter->ts);
> unsigned long usec_rem = do_div(t, USEC_PER_SEC);
> - unsigned secs = (unsigned long)t;
> + unsigned int secs = (unsigned long)t;
>

OK.

> trace_assign_type(field, entry);
> rw = &field->rw;
> @@ -215,7 +212,7 @@ static enum print_line_t mmio_print_map(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> struct trace_seq *s = &iter->seq;
> unsigned long long t = ns2usecs(iter->ts);
> unsigned long usec_rem = do_div(t, USEC_PER_SEC);
> - unsigned secs = (unsigned long)t;
> + unsigned int secs = (unsigned long)t;
>
> trace_assign_type(field, entry);
> m = &field->map;
> @@ -249,7 +246,7 @@ static enum print_line_t mmio_print_mark(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> struct trace_seq *s = &iter->seq;
> unsigned long long t = ns2usecs(iter->ts);
> unsigned long usec_rem = do_div(t, USEC_PER_SEC);
> - unsigned secs = (unsigned long)t;
> + unsigned int secs = (unsigned long)t;
>
> trace_assign_type(print, entry);
> msg = print->buf;
> @@ -274,8 +271,7 @@ static enum print_line_t mmio_print_line(struct trace_iterator *iter)
> }
> }
>
> -static struct tracer mmio_tracer __read_mostly =
> -{
> +static struct tracer mmio_tracer __read_mostly = {

OK.

> .name = "mmiotrace",
> .init = mmio_trace_init,
> .reset = mmio_trace_reset,
> @@ -322,6 +318,7 @@ static void __trace_mmiotrace_rw(struct trace_array *tr,
> void mmio_trace_rw(struct mmiotrace_rw *rw)
> {
> struct trace_array *tr = mmio_trace_array;
> +
> __trace_mmiotrace_rw(tr, rw);
> }
>
> @@ -353,6 +350,7 @@ static void __trace_mmiotrace_map(struct trace_array *tr,
> void mmio_trace_mapping(struct mmiotrace_map *map)
> {
> struct trace_array *tr = mmio_trace_array;
> +
> __trace_mmiotrace_map(tr, map);
> }

Honestly, for one line functions like the above, I think it looks better
without that blank line.

-- Steve