Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt 1/2] lib: Add hooks for enabling ftrace

2017-08-08 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Petri Latvala (2017-08-08 13:54:46)
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 12:27:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> 
> *snip*
> 
> > +#define BIT(x) (1ul << (x))
> > +
> > +/* Only a single tracer in the kernel, so we can use a singleton */
> > +struct igt_ftrace {
> > + int dir;
> > +
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +#define PID_SET BIT(0)
> > +#define INCLUDE_SET BIT(1)
> > +#define EXCLUDE_SET BIT(2)
> > +
> > +} igt_ftrace = { -1 };
> > +
> 
> 
> 
> Why are those #defines inside the struct definition?

They are part of the definition for @flags. It's common enough practice,
since I keep badgering people to do the same.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx


Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt 1/2] lib: Add hooks for enabling ftrace

2017-08-08 Thread Petri Latvala
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 12:27:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:

*snip*

> +#define BIT(x) (1ul << (x))
> +
> +/* Only a single tracer in the kernel, so we can use a singleton */
> +struct igt_ftrace {
> + int dir;
> +
> + unsigned long flags;
> +#define PID_SET BIT(0)
> +#define INCLUDE_SET BIT(1)
> +#define EXCLUDE_SET BIT(2)
> +
> +} igt_ftrace = { -1 };
> +



Why are those #defines inside the struct definition?


--
Petri Latvala
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx