[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7d0f68b8-ecdb-45fb-ae10-954eac5ed32c@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:40:56 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Dongliang Cui <dongliang.cui@...soc.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
ebiggers@...nel.org
Cc: ke.wang@...soc.com, hongyu.jin.cn@...il.com, niuzhiguo84@...il.com,
hao_hao.wang@...soc.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akailash@...gle.com, cuidongliang390@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] block: Add ioprio to block_rq tracepoint
On 6/14/24 12:49 AM, Dongliang Cui wrote:
> - TP_printk("%d,%d %s (%s) %llu + %u [%d]",
> + TP_printk("%d,%d %s (%s) %llu + %u %s,%u,%u [%d]",
> MAJOR(__entry->dev), MINOR(__entry->dev),
> __entry->rwbs, __get_str(cmd),
> - (unsigned long long)__entry->sector,
> - __entry->nr_sector, 0)
> + (unsigned long long)__entry->sector, __entry->nr_sector,
> + __print_symbolic(IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(__entry->ioprio),
> + IOPRIO_CLASS_STRINGS),
> + IOPRIO_PRIO_HINT(__entry->ioprio),
> + IOPRIO_PRIO_LEVEL(__entry->ioprio), 0)
> );
Do we really want to include the constant "[0]" in the tracing output?
Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists