On 6/17/24 12:59 AM, dongliang cui wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:41 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/14/24 12:49 AM, Dongliang Cui wrote:
- TP_printk("%d,%d %s (%s) %llu + %u [%d]",
+ TP_printk("%d,%d %s (%s) %llu + %u %s,%u,%u [%d]",
MAJOR(__entry->dev), MINOR(__entry->dev),
__entry->rwbs, __get_str(cmd),
- (unsigned long long)__entry->sector,
- __entry->nr_sector, 0)
+ (unsigned long long)__entry->sector, __entry->nr_sector,
+ __print_symbolic(IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(__entry->ioprio),
+ IOPRIO_CLASS_STRINGS),
+ IOPRIO_PRIO_HINT(__entry->ioprio),
+ IOPRIO_PRIO_LEVEL(__entry->ioprio), 0)
);
Do we really want to include the constant "[0]" in the tracing output?
This is how it is printed in the source code.
From the code flow point of view, there is no need to print this value
in trace_block_rq_requeue.
Do we need to consider the issue of uniform printing format? If not, I
think we can delete it.
I'm not aware of any other tracing statement that prints out a constant.
Is there perhaps something that I'm missing or overlooking?
Thanks,
Bart.
