> On Mar 10, 2023, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is probably a better way to do this that doesn't repeat anything. > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202303071503.shUSoIpC-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/lockd/trace.h | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > Chuck, I'm fine if you want to just fold this into the original > tracepoint patch too. Also, let me know if you see a way to express this > better. Interesting, I have the lockd tracepoint patch in nfsd-next, and haven't heard a peep from the bots. I'll fold something in. > diff --git a/fs/lockd/trace.h b/fs/lockd/trace.h > index 3e84e3efaf22..11f1381b566c 100644 > --- a/fs/lockd/trace.h > +++ b/fs/lockd/trace.h > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > #include <linux/nfs.h> > #include <linux/lockd/lockd.h> Btw, here I think TRACE_DEFINE_ENUMs will be needed. I can confirm that, and add if necessary. > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKD_V4 > #define show_nlm_status(val) \ > __print_symbolic(val, \ > { NLM_LCK_GRANTED, "LCK_GRANTED" }, \ > @@ -22,6 +23,15 @@ > { NLM_STALE_FH, "STALE_FH" }, \ > { NLM_FBIG, "FBIG" }, \ > { NLM_FAILED, "FAILED" }) > +#else > +#define show_nlm_status(val) \ > + __print_symbolic(val, \ > + { NLM_LCK_GRANTED, "LCK_GRANTED" }, \ > + { NLM_LCK_DENIED, "LCK_DENIED" }, \ > + { NLM_LCK_DENIED_NOLOCKS, "LCK_DENIED_NOLOCKS" }, \ > + { NLM_LCK_BLOCKED, "LCK_BLOCKED" }, \ > + { NLM_LCK_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD, "LCK_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD" }) > +#endif > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(nlmclnt_lock_event, > TP_PROTO( > -- > 2.39.2 > -- Chuck Lever
