On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:14:02 +0200 "Tzvetomir Stoyanov (VMware)" <tz.stoyanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > @@ -940,7 +1215,11 @@ static int make_trace_resp(struct tracecmd_msg *msg, int page_size, int nr_cpus, > write_uints(msg->buf, data_size, ports, nr_cpus); > > msg->hdr.size = htonl(ntohl(msg->hdr.size) + data_size); > - msg->trace_resp.flags = use_fifos ? htonl(MSG_TRACE_USE_FIFOS) : htonl(0); > + msg->trace_req.flags = use_fifos ? MSG_TRACE_USE_FIFOS : 0; Is there a reason to use "msg->trace_req" instead of "msg->trace_resp"? -- Steve > + msg->trace_resp.flags = htonl(msg->trace_resp.flags); > + msg->trace_resp.tsync_proto = htonl(tsync_proto); > + msg->trace_resp.tsync_port = htonl(tsync_port); > + > msg->trace_resp.cpus = htonl(nr_cpus); > msg->trace_resp.page_size = htonl(page_size); > msg->trace_resp.trace_id = htonll(trace_id);
|