[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240212130848.7415b87f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:08:48 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <quic_krichai@...cinc.com>, Manivannan
Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhi@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
quic_vbadigan@...cinc.com, quic_ramkri@...cinc.com,
quic_nitegupt@...cinc.com, quic_skananth@...cinc.com,
quic_parass@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] bus: mhi: host: Add tracing support
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:01:10 +0530
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
> > Bot will check sparse warnings/errors mostly. But these checkpatch issues can be
> > fixed easily. If you don't do it now, then someone will send a patch for it
> > later.
> >
>
> Hmm, seems like we should ignore these checkpatch issues due to the way the
> macros are used by trace headers. Ignore my above comment, patch looks fine.
Yes please ignore checkpatch on any TRACE_EVENT() and related macros. It
doesn't understand them, and reports errors and asks for fixes that break
the default way of using TRACE_EVENT().
Someday I hope someone teaches checkpatch to know the TRACE_EVENT() default
format which is:
TRACE_EVENT(event,
TP_PROTO(<proto>),
TP_ARGS(<args>),
TP_STRUCT__entry(
__field( <type>, <field> )
__array( <type>, <field>, <len> )
),
TP_fast_assign(
<code-block>
),
TP_printk("format", <print-args>)
);
But checkpatch will error all over the above. :-(
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists