On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:19:46AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 06:51:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:19:49 +0200
> > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > +DEFINE_EVENT(watchdog_template, watchdog_start,
> > > + TP_PROTO(struct watchdog_device *wdd, int err),
> > > + TP_ARGS(wdd, err));
> > > +
> > > +TRACE_EVENT(watchdog_set_timeout,
> > > +
> > > + TP_PROTO(struct watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned int timeout, int err),
> > > +
> > > + TP_ARGS(wdd, timeout, err),
> > > +
> > > + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > > + __field(int, id)
> > > + __field(unsigned int, timeout)
> > > + __field(int, err)
> > > + ),
> > > +
> > > + TP_fast_assign(
> > > + __entry->id = wdd->id;
> > > + __entry->timeout = timeout;
> > > + __entry->err = err;
> > > + ),
> > > +
> > > + TP_printk("watchdog%d timeout=%u err=%d", __entry->id, __entry->timeout, __entry->err)
> > > +);
> >
> > Nit, but I would probably put the above TRACE_EVENT() below the two
> > DEFINE_EVENT()s below. That way we have all the DEFINE_EVENT()s for a
> > specific DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() together. Otherwise people may get confused.
>
> I thought about that, too. The argument for the order I chose is that
> having start at the start and stop at the end is also intuitive.
>
> But I don't care much and would let the watchdog guys decide what they
> prefer.
>
> @Wim+Guenter: Feel free to reorder at application time or ask for a v3
> if this v2 doesn't fit your preference.
For my part I would prefer a version with Steven's Reviewed-by: tag,
whatever it is.
Guenter
