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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAPqOJe1=+dqcapg-_Y+Fq9W61wDMMzDLzP+CQqcTW69WdKQqRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:59:06 +0800
From: dongliang cui <cuidongliang390@...il.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
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 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.
>
> Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>