Zoltan Kiss <[email protected]> wrote: >On 25/09/13 18:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:04:17PM +0100, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I haven't got a reply in the past 2 weeks, so I would like to bump >>> the patch, just to make sure it haven't fell off the radar. >> >> Hey, >> >> I have this in my queue to put on 3.13 as it is past the merge >window. >> .. with that in mind: >> >> >> .. snip.. >>>> + TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx " >>>> + "size=%zu swiotlb_force=%x", >>>> + __get_str(dev_name), >>>> + __entry->dma_mask, >>>> + (unsigned long long)__entry->dev_addr, >>>> + __entry->size, >>>> + __entry->swiotlb_force) >> >> Would it make sense to do something like this: >> >> __entry->swiotlb_force ? "swiotlb_force" : "") >> > >I would then rather do: > >+ TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx " >+ "size=%zu swiotlb_force=", >+ __entry->swiotlb_force ? " yes" : "no", >+ __get_str(dev_name), > >Or do you mean?: > >+ TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx " >+ "size=%zu", >+ __entry->swiotlb_force ? " swiotlb_force" : "", >+ __get_str(dev_name), > >This one doesn't tell you explicitly if swiotlb_force is NOT set, maybe > >that's not so good? And adds a bit of complexity to your grep regexp? >Either way is fine with me, but I think "swiotlb_force=0|1" is also >pretty straightforward to understand, and I guess it makes printk >slightly faster (I assume the conditional operator gives a little bit >of >overhead) > >Regards, > >Zoli
I was thinking it would be good to print the swiotlb-force only when it is enabled. So your second one would be it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
