On 25/09/13 18:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:04:17PM +0100, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
Hi,
I haven't got a reply in the past 2 weeks, so I would like to bump
the patch, just to make sure it haven't fell off the radar.
Hey,
I have this in my queue to put on 3.13 as it is past the merge window.
.. with that in mind:
.. snip..
+ TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
+ "size=%zu swiotlb_force=%x",
+ __get_str(dev_name),
+ __entry->dma_mask,
+ (unsigned long long)__entry->dev_addr,
+ __entry->size,
+ __entry->swiotlb_force)
Would it make sense to do something like this:
__entry->swiotlb_force ? "swiotlb_force" : "")
I would then rather do:
+ TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
+ "size=%zu swiotlb_force=",
+ __entry->swiotlb_force ? " yes" : "no",
+ __get_str(dev_name),
Or do you mean?:
+ TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
+ "size=%zu",
+ __entry->swiotlb_force ? " swiotlb_force" : "",
+ __get_str(dev_name),
This one doesn't tell you explicitly if swiotlb_force is NOT set, maybe
that's not so good? And adds a bit of complexity to your grep regexp?
Either way is fine with me, but I think "swiotlb_force=0|1" is also
pretty straightforward to understand, and I guess it makes printk
slightly faster (I assume the conditional operator gives a little bit of
overhead)
Regards,
Zoli
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
