> >> That rather isn't the case if negative values are ever passed to the > >> tracepoint, right? > >> > > yes. > >> Which seems to be the reason why you want to make this change, isn't it? > >> > > yes, to improve readability. > > > >> So maybe fix the code using the tracepoint(s) to avoid passing > >> negative values to it(them)? > > For cpu_idle event, [0, CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX) are used to index the idle state > > arrary, > > so I think a appropriate value for PWR_EVENT_EXIT is -1 (defined in > > include/trace/events/power.h). > > Or do you have a better idea? Thanks! > > Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. > > I'm saying that the code using the CPU PM tracepoints is not expected > to pass -1 as the CPU number to them. IOW, neither -1 nor its UL > representation should ever appear in the output of these tracepoints. > If that happens, it is a problem with the code using the tracepoints > which needs to be fixed. Users should not see any of these values.
This patch only changed 'state' field but cpuid. For cpu_idle event, 'state' is singned value, but for cpu_frequency it is unsinged. The cpuid is always unsinged value. So no one passes -1 as CPU number. -- Thanks, Changbin Du