On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:43 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:52:55 +0000 > Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -43,7 +45,7 @@ static int test__perf_evsel__tp_sched_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unuse > > return -1; > > } > > > > - if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "prev_comm", 16, false)) > > + if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "prev_comm", TASK_COMM_LEN, false)) > > ret = -1; > > > > if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "prev_pid", 4, true)) > > @@ -55,7 +57,7 @@ static int test__perf_evsel__tp_sched_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unuse > > if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "prev_state", sizeof(long), true)) > > ret = -1; > > > > - if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "next_comm", 16, false)) > > + if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "next_comm", TASK_COMM_LEN, false)) > > ret = -1; > > > > if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "next_pid", 4, true)) > > @@ -73,7 +75,7 @@ static int test__perf_evsel__tp_sched_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unuse > > return -1; > > } > > > > - if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "comm", 16, false)) > > + if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "comm", TASK_COMM_LEN, false)) > > Shouldn't all these be TASK_COMM_LEN_16? > The value here must be the same with TASK_COMM_LEN, so I use TASK_COMM_LEN here. But we may also change the code as https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211101060419.4682-9-laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx/ if TASK_COMM_LEN is changed, so TASK_COMM_LEN_16 is also okay here. I will change it to TASK_COMM_LEN_16 in the next version. > > > ret = -1; > > > > if (evsel__test_field(evsel, "pid", 4, true)) > -- Thanks Yafang
