[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b1cfefa-da7d-3376-cf04-1ff77dab8170@openvz.org>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 01:28:58 +0300
From: Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, kernel@...nvz.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm] tracing: incorrect gfp_t conversion
On 5/7/22 22:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 22:02:05 +0300 Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org> wrote:
>> + {(__force unsigned long)GFP_KERNEL, "GFP_KERNEL"}, \
>> + {(__force unsigned long)GFP_NOFS, "GFP_NOFS"}, \
>
> This got all repetitive, line-wrappy and ugly :(
>
> What do we think of something silly like this?
> --- a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h~tracing-incorrect-gfp_t-conversion-fix
> +++ a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
> @@ -13,53 +13,57 @@
> * Thus most bits set go first.
> */
>
> +#define FUL __force unsigned long
> +
> #define __def_gfpflag_names \
> - {(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE, "GFP_TRANSHUGE"}, \
> - {(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT, "GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \
...
> + {(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE, "GFP_TRANSHUGE"}, \
> + {(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT, "GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \
I think it's a good idea, and I regret it was your idea and not mine.
Should I resend my patch with these changes or would you prefer
to keep your patch as a separate one?
Thank you,
Vasily Averin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists