[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49E2B656.1020308@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:49:42 +0800
From: Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing, workqueuetrace: Make workqueue tracepoints
use TRACE_EVENT macro
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> hehe, I also have similar patch in my local patch queue ;)
>>
>>> +TRACE_EVENT(workqueue_insertion,
>>> +
>>> + TP_PROTO(struct task_struct *wq_thread, struct work_struct *work),
>>> +
>>> + TP_ARGS(wq_thread, work),
>>> +
>>> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
>>> + __array( char, thread_comm, TASK_COMM_LEN )
>>> + __field( pid_t, thread_pid )
>>> + __field( struct work_struct *, work )
>>> + __field( work_func_t, func )
>>> + ),
>
> and, your patch exceed 80 character in many lines.
> Please use checkpatch.pl script.
Hello, Kosaki-san
Thanks for your comments for this patch,
I'll merge your and other people's comments and send a V2.
About line exceed 80 characters, I do checkpatch before send, and I know that
lines in TP_STRUCT__entry are too long.
It it because I use similar format with other TRACE_EVENT definition.
Actually, I don't know why we need to add prefix and postfix TABs, and is it
necessary to use tab to make alignment for each fields.
Who can give me teach? or I will use different format to fix this 80-char problem.
Thanks
Zhaolei
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists