linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing/sched: sched_switch: place prev_comm and next

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <14898c69-6a2e-4a9d-a0d4-d674087cd1ae@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:54:08 +0530
From: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
To: tiozhang@...iglobal.com
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        zyhtheonly@...il.com, zyhtheonly@...h.net,
        Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing/sched: sched_switch: place prev_comm and
 next_comm in right order

Hi Tio zhang,

On 17/04/24 15:59, Tio Zhang wrote:
> Switch the order of prev_comm and next_comm in sched_switch's code to
> align with its printing order.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tio Zhang <tiozhang@...iglobal.com>
> ---
>  include/trace/events/sched.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/sched.h b/include/trace/events/sched.h
> index dbb01b4b7451..a4bd4330db4c 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/sched.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/sched.h
> @@ -239,11 +239,11 @@ TRACE_EVENT(sched_switch,
>  	),
>  
>  	TP_fast_assign(
> -		memcpy(__entry->next_comm, next->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
> +		memcpy(__entry->prev_comm, prev->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
>  		__entry->prev_pid	= prev->pid;
>  		__entry->prev_prio	= prev->prio;
>  		__entry->prev_state	= __trace_sched_switch_state(preempt, prev_state, prev);
> -		memcpy(__entry->prev_comm, prev->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
> +		memcpy(__entry->next_comm, next->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
>  		__entry->next_pid	= next->pid;
>  		__entry->next_prio	= next->prio;
>  		/* XXX SCHED_DEADLINE */

Yes, makes sense to have all previous and then the next for increased readability.

Reviewed-by: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>