On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 12:21:02PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > Hrm, ok. Honestly, I wanted to just delete that code for a long time. IMO > tracepoints (and we have one in __mark_inode_dirty) are much more useful > for tracing anyway. This code exists only because it was there much before > tracepoints existed... Do you have a strong reason why are you using > block_dump instead of tracepoint trace_writeback_mark_inode_dirty() for > your monitoring? Let me play devils advocate here, the downside of the writeback tracepoints is that they only trace the inode number and not a file name (component). Which is also the reason they avoid this problem. That being said block_dump is a horrible hack, and trace points are the proper replacement.
