Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] mm, debug: introduce dump_gfpflag_names() for symbolic printing of gfp_flags

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 11/25/2015 09:16 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> --- a/include/trace/events/gfpflags.h
>> +++ b/include/trace/events/gfpflags.h
>> @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@
>>   *
>>   * Thus most bits set go first.
>>   */
>> -#define show_gfp_flags(flags)						\
>> -	(flags) ? __print_flags(flags, "|",				\
>> +
>> +#define __def_gfpflag_names						\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE,	"GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE"}, \
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER,		"GFP_HIGHUSER"},	\
>> @@ -19,9 +19,13 @@
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_NOFS,		"GFP_NOFS"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_ATOMIC,		"GFP_ATOMIC"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)GFP_NOIO,		"GFP_NOIO"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)GFP_NOWAIT,		"GFP_NOWAIT"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_DMA,		"GFP_DMA"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_DMA32,		"GFP_DMA32"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_HIGH,		"GFP_HIGH"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_ATOMIC,		"GFP_ATOMIC"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_IO,		"GFP_IO"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_FS,		"GFP_FS"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_COLD,		"GFP_COLD"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_NOWARN,		"GFP_NOWARN"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_REPEAT,		"GFP_REPEAT"},		\
>> @@ -36,8 +40,12 @@
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_RECLAIMABLE,	"GFP_RECLAIMABLE"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_MOVABLE,		"GFP_MOVABLE"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_NOTRACK,		"GFP_NOTRACK"},		\
>> +	{(unsigned long)__GFP_WRITE,		"GFP_WRITE"},		\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM,	"GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM,	"GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM"},	\
>>  	{(unsigned long)__GFP_OTHER_NODE,	"GFP_OTHER_NODE"}	\
>> -	) : "GFP_NOWAIT"
>>  
>> +#define show_gfp_flags(flags)						\
>> +	(flags) ? __print_flags(flags, "|",				\
>> +	__def_gfpflag_names						\
>> +	) : "none"
> 
> How about moving this to gfp.h or something?
> Now, we use it in out of tracepoints so there is no need to keep it
> in include/trace/events/xxx.

Hm I didn't want to pollute such widely included header with such defines. And
show_gfp_flags shouldn't be there definitely as it depends on __print_flags.
What do others think?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>