[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x498vyw7qe7.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:13:52 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blktrace: add missing probe argument to block_bio_complete
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> writes:
> blktrace.c block bio complete callback needs to gain a new argument to reflect
> the newly added "error" tracepoint argument. This is needed to match the new
> block_bio_complete TRACE_EVENT as of
> commit de983a7bfcb7c020901ca6e2314cf55a4207ab5a.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> CC: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
> CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> CC: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/trace/blktrace.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> @@ -785,7 +785,8 @@ static void blk_add_trace_bio_bounce(voi
> }
>
> static void blk_add_trace_bio_complete(void *ignore,
> - struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> + struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio,
> + int error)
> {
> blk_add_trace_bio(q, bio, BLK_TA_COMPLETE);
> }
OK, I clearly didn't look closely enough last time. There's no sense
passing this information down if it isn't used (as you said initially).
blk_add_trace_bio sets the error based on whether or not the
BIO_UPTODATE bit is set. So, I think we should instead revert the patch
I sent you (Mathieu), and then completely get rid of the error field in
the TP macros.
Does that make sense to everyone else?
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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