linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] block: Add ioprio to block

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]

Message-ID: <84e024ba-b921-481c-a83d-eec0dd0e8328@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 10:02:48 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: dongliang cui <cuidongliang390@...il.com>
Cc: Dongliang Cui <dongliang.cui@...soc.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
 rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
 ebiggers@...nel.org, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] block: Add ioprio to block_rq tracepoint

On 6/17/24 12:59 AM, dongliang cui wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:41 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
> This is how it is printed in the source code.
>  From the code flow point of view, there is no need to print this value
> in trace_block_rq_requeue.
> Do we need to consider the issue of uniform printing format? If not, I
> think we can delete it.

I'm not aware of any other tracing statement that prints out a constant.
Is there perhaps something that I'm missing or overlooking?

Thanks,

Bart.