[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25740B27-9C85-46D9-8ACF-17D45D56A014@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:15:01 -0400
From: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@...app.com>,
Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 1/2] sunrpc: Wrap read accesses to
rpc_task.tk_pid
On 16 Oct 2023, at 9:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> The tk_pid member in the rpc_task structure exists conditionally on
> debug or tracing being enabled.
>
> Introduce and use a wapper to read the value of this member, so users
> outside tracing no longer have to care about these conditions.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310121759.0CF34DcN-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
I never work on kernels that don't have tk_pid, but I can say its so useful
that for 2 out of the 224 bytes that rpc_task uses (on aarch64), I'd be
inclined to just include it all the time. That way its around for folks to
reference with realtime tools (like bpftrace, stap).
Does anyone know if there is a good reason not to include it for all
configurations?
Ben
..also:
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists