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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:14:33 +0000
From: 张元瀚 Tio Zhang <tiozhang@...iglobal.com>
To: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "mhiramat@...nel.org"
	<mhiramat@...nel.org>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers
	<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, "zyhtheonly@...il.com"
	<zyhtheonly@...il.com>, "zyhtheonly@...h.net" <zyhtheonly@...h.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing/sched: sched_switch: place prev_comm and
 next_comm in right order

Hi Steven, 

Ping :) 

On 4/23/24 下午6:24, "Madadi Vineeth Reddy" <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com <mailto:vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>> wrote:


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 <mailto: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 <mailto:vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>>