Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/events: Add kexec tracepoints | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:58:41 -0700 |
| |
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
| |