linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: add tracepoint for runtime

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:35:10 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Vilas Bhat <vilasbhat@...gle.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
 Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Saravana Kannan
 <saravanak@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: add tracepoint for runtime_status
 changes

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:57:03 -0800
Vilas Bhat <vilasbhat@...gle.com> wrote:

> > You could do what everyone else does:
> >
> > #define RPM_STATUS_STRINGS                      \
> >         EM( RPM_INVALID, "RPM_INVALID" )        \
> >         EM( RPM_ACTIVE, "RPM_ACTIVE" )          \
> >         EM( RPM_RESUMING, "RPM_RESUMING" )      \
> >         EM( RPM_SUSPENDED, "RPM_SUSPENDED" )    \
> >         EMe( RPM_SUSPENDING, "RPM_SUSPENDING" )
> >
> > #undef EM
> > #undef EMe
> > #define EM(a, b)        TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(a);
> > #define EMe(a, b)       TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(a);
> >
> > RPM_STATUS_STRINGS
> >
> > #undef EM
> > #undef EMe
> > #define EM(a, b)        { a, b },
> > #define EMe(a, b)       { a, b }
> >  
> 
> Thanks for the comment, Steven. I did notice both methods of defining
> enum values for tracepoints and chose this method because it felt
> clearer. Could you clarify on why the method you suggested is
> preferred?
> 

Sure. One big reason: It removes duplication.

If you add another enum to the list, you only need to update it in one
place. And it prevents the two from getting out of sync.

-- Steve