linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] mm, debug: introduce dump_gfpflag_names() for symbolic printing of gfp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:28:28 +0100
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] mm, debug: introduce dump_gfpflag_names() for
 symbolic printing of gfp_flags

On 11/25/2015 09:16 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> --- a/include/trace/events/gfpflags.h
>> +++ b/include/trace/events/gfpflags.h
>> @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@
>>   *
>>   * Thus most bits set go first.
>>   */
>> -#define show_gfp_flags(flags)						\
>> -	(flags) ? __print_flags(flags, "|",				\
>> +
>> +#define __def_gfpflag_names						\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE,	"GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE"}, \
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER,		"GFP_HIGHUSER"},	\
>> @@ -19,9 +19,13 @@
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_NOFS,		"GFP_NOFS"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_ATOMIC,		"GFP_ATOMIC"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_NOIO,		"GFP_NOIO"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)GFP_NOWAIT,		"GFP_NOWAIT"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_DMA,		"GFP_DMA"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_DMA32,		"GFP_DMA32"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_HIGH,		"GFP_HIGH"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_ATOMIC,		"GFP_ATOMIC"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_IO,		"GFP_IO"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_FS,		"GFP_FS"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_COLD,		"GFP_COLD"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_NOWARN,		"GFP_NOWARN"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_REPEAT,		"GFP_REPEAT"},		\
>> @@ -36,8 +40,12 @@
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_RECLAIMABLE,	"GFP_RECLAIMABLE"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_MOVABLE,		"GFP_MOVABLE"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_NOTRACK,		"GFP_NOTRACK"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_WRITE,		"GFP_WRITE"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM,	"GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM,	"GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_OTHER_NODE,	"GFP_OTHER_NODE"}	\
>> -	) : "GFP_NOWAIT"
>>  
>> +#define show_gfp_flags(flags)						\
>> +	(flags) ? __print_flags(flags, "|",				\
>> +	__def_gfpflag_names						\
>> +	) : "none"
> 
> How about moving this to gfp.h or something?
> Now, we use it in out of tracepoints so there is no need to keep it
> in include/trace/events/xxx.

Hm I didn't want to pollute such widely included header with such defines. And
show_gfp_flags shouldn't be there definitely as it depends on __print_flags.
What do others think?

--
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/