[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60870376-3518-896b-7a6b-a4b9ea05264f@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:27:33 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Arun Easi <aeasi@...vell.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Martin Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] tracing: Fix compile error in trace_array calls
when TRACING is disabled
On 9/7/22 11:57, Arun Easi wrote:
> +#else /* CONFIG_TRACING */
> +static inline int register_ftrace_export(struct trace_export *export)
> +{
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +static inline int unregister_ftrace_export(struct trace_export *export)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
Isn't it recommended to leave a blank line between function definitions?
> +static inline int
> +trace_array_printk(struct trace_array *tr, unsigned long ip,
> + const char *fmt, ...)
This is not the recommended way to format a function definition.
Consider running git clang-format HEAD^.
> +static inline struct trace_array *
> +trace_array_get_by_name(const char *name)
Same comment here.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists