On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:38 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:37:02 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > +TRACE_EVENT(block_rq_error,
> > > > +
> > > > + TP_PROTO(struct request *rq, int error, unsigned int nr_bytes),
> > > > +
> > > > + TP_ARGS(rq, error, nr_bytes),
> > > > +
> > > > + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > > > + __field( dev_t, dev )
> > > > + __string( name, rq->rq_disk ? rq->rq_disk->disk_name : "?")
> > > > + __field( sector_t, sector )
> > > > + __field( unsigned int, nr_sector )
> > > > + __field( int, error )
> > > > + __array( char, rwbs, RWBS_LEN )
> >
> > Why is the above not "__string" ?
> >
> > > > + ),
> > > > +
> > > > + TP_fast_assign(
> > > > + __entry->dev = rq->rq_disk ? disk_devt(rq->rq_disk) : 0;
> > > > + __assign_str(name, rq->rq_disk ? rq->rq_disk->disk_name : "?");
> >
> > __assign_str() will not work on an __array() type. It only works here
> > because you added it at the end, but it's just shear luck that it didn't
> > crash.
>
> Never mind :-p I see the above is for name which is __string, and the
> array is for rwbs which is filled below. I need to finish my first cup of
> coffee before reviewing patches.
Never mind. Other than the code restructure, I also found some data
structure (struct request) and function (blk_fill_rwbs) change. I
think I'd better rebase the patch to 5.17-rc1 then resubmit it. Since
there is no fundamental change to the patch, can I keep your
reviewed-by tag?
>
> -- Steve
>
> >
> >
> > > > + __entry->sector = blk_rq_pos(rq);
> > > > + __entry->nr_sector = nr_bytes >> 9;
> > > > + __entry->error = error;
> > > > +
> > > > + blk_fill_rwbs(__entry->rwbs, rq->cmd_flags, nr_bytes);
> > > > + ),
> > > > +
> > > > + TP_printk("%d,%d %s %s %llu + %u [%d]",
> > > > + MAJOR(__entry->dev), MINOR(__entry->dev),
> > > > + __get_str(name), __entry->rwbs,
> > > > + (unsigned long long)__entry->sector,
> > > > + __entry->nr_sector, __entry->error)
> > > > +);
> > > > +
