lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/events: Add kexec tracepoints
From
Date
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:19 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 07:12 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 07:46 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 21:59 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 09:26 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > > > > Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 09:15 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > > > > >> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > > > > >> + __string( msg, msg )
> > > > > >> + ),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why the funny spacing here?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To make the code better-looking.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the coding-style we use for the code in
> > > > > include/trace/events/*.
> > > >
> > > > It's part of Linux right? We already have a coding style ..
> > >
> > > It's a special macro. What are you now, part of the style police?
> >
> > I'm just like everyone else, someone who asks questions and makes
> > comments .. By using a different style than what the rest of Linux uses
> > your putting yourself at a disadvantage since you can't easily use
> > checkpatch on that code (even the stuff that is compliant) ..
>
> I'm fine with questions, but yours sounded a bit more cynical

I'm never cynical (not on purpose anyway). I was just saying it like it
is ..

> And here's that same code with normal Linux style:
>
> TRACE_EVENT(sched_wait_task,
> TP_PROTO(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p),
> TP_ARGS(rq, p),
> TP_STRUCT__entry(__array(char, comm, TASK_COMM_LEN)
> __field(pid_t, pid)
> __field(int, prio)),
> TP_fast_assign(memcpy(__entry->comm, p->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
> __entry->pid = p->pid;
> __entry->prio = p->prio;
> ),
> TP_printk("task %s:%d [%d]",
> __entry->comm, __entry->pid, __entry->prio));


The below is checkpatch clean ..

TRACE_EVENT(sched_wait_task,

TP_PROTO(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p),

TP_ARGS(rq, p),

TP_STRUCT__entry(
__array(char, comm, TASK_COMM_LEN)
__field(pid_t, pid)
__field(int, prio)
),

TP_fast_assign(
memcpy(__entry->comm, p->comm, TASK_COMM_LEN);
__entry->pid = p->pid;
__entry->prio = p->prio;
),

TP_printk("task %s:%d [%d]",
__entry->comm, __entry->pid, __entry->prio)
);


That's not radically different from what you currently have .. You could
still align the fields with tabs. You just have to remove the
starting/ending tabs..

Daniel



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-09 18:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean