[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220509170605.2eb7637e@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 17:06:05 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
kbuild-all@...ts.01.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
kernel@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: improve percpu_alloc_percpu event trace
On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:51:16 +0300
Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org> wrote:
> The same messages are generated for any other gfp_t argument in trace events.
> As far as I understand it is not a bug per se,
> but trace macros lacks __force attribute in 'gfp_t'-> 'unsigned long' casts.
> The same thing happens with mode_t and with some other places using __print_flags()
> for __bitwise marked types.
I'm curious as to where the gfp_t to unsigned long is happening in the
macros?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists