On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/15/26 11:50 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:27:27 -0700 > > Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 5/15/26 6:59 AM, Vineeth Pillai (Google) wrote: > >>> static void ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, > >>> @@ -432,8 +432,8 @@ static void ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace(struct > >>> ufs_hba *hba, > >>> if (!trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled()) > >>> return; > >>> > >>> - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, &rq_rsp->header, > >>> - &rq_rsp->qr, UFS_TSF_OSF); > >>> + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, &rq_rsp->header, > >>> + &rq_rsp->qr, UFS_TSF_OSF); > >>> } > >> > >> Instead of making this change, please remove the > >> trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled() call because it is redundant. > > > > You mean to remove the ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace() function and just use > > a tracepoint where it is called? > > That would be even better. > Will do.
> >>> static void ufshcd_add_tm_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int > >>> tag, > >>> @@ -445,15 +445,15 @@ static void ufshcd_add_tm_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba > >>> *hba, unsigned int tag, > >>> return; > >>> > >>> if (str_t == UFS_TM_SEND) > >>> - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > >>> - &descp->upiu_req.req_header, > >>> - &descp->upiu_req.input_param1, > >>> - UFS_TSF_TM_INPUT); > >>> + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > >>> + &descp->upiu_req.req_header, > >>> + &descp->upiu_req.input_param1, > >>> + UFS_TSF_TM_INPUT); > >>> else > >>> - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > >>> - &descp->upiu_rsp.rsp_header, > >>> - &descp->upiu_rsp.output_param1, > >>> - UFS_TSF_TM_OUTPUT); > >>> + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > >>> + &descp->upiu_rsp.rsp_header, > >>> + &descp->upiu_rsp.output_param1, > >>> + UFS_TSF_TM_OUTPUT); > >>> } > >> > >> Same comment here: I think it would be better to remove the > >> trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled() call rather than > >> changing trace_ufshcd_upiu() into trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(). > > > > Well, removing it here would mean placing the if (str == UFS_TM_SEND) into > > the code and processing it even when tracing is disabled. With the > > trace_*_enabled() helper, it's all a nop. > > The ufshcd_add_tm_upiu_trace() function is only called from the UFS > error handler and hence is not performance sensitive. The execution of > an additional if-test in this function is not a concern at all. > Sure, I shall change this. Thanks, Vineeth
