From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net (008.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DBAF157A41; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:03:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718643784; cv=none; b=XZhi8G8XaOxchboeaN/wU2rr60E63mC3hqQv38RPRNxAouA1DarZHQQMJwYX9jJ742jehNDj8P16qDTKNv9K7bbxCBdu9fyE4BVAiPaGsFwCozlVb7Rf7i6HDgcXdwBn8pEf6N+LeMYjF8A1mq1soBwCvGYfyKBodI7I0Uk6QAA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718643784; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SgyQbzzcdBXXmyOpRsMu2bwCZ1cBAWRPxcqyPjOhikg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=t2J6nO4GswD9CR6ROQA4g9xcRp8xzfBRk6NL8hSENB6G78JXMJaJtogz2UMdwH+LZadrgH3Cn4+3raddEaliEOETg+uiB2VYdKO38CwY0GofaOKjaZ/DhtcnblNLPLv1cwqE6vcrMEM2vjiU7saj22aOFR1MHy94R2CkLg6CCP0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=KBNld+85; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="KBNld+85" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4W2x5r101fz6Cnk97; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:02:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1718643770; x=1721235771; bh=wnV5DGFlY55WTGNb14FMiJHz W0Mmlgovnem+iwBiibs=; b=KBNld+85Ri37EDRFTZaIQYwPF4WCHo0GxPB0YiBx epkAyShOgeWCeoJTqh4d8Kgwq9Hrk6HgiJgA+clxoROlmzeL7SaozFifYvq/2+eo kC+HWkvfzvy4JTDosOLjM6fFBKrDNzD0KuCyY14LEsPHM5ObjBnIWfUsAhYv0x1a tMVCG18I8tGk+IJMPpumXMngqn5FD1/XJX2oXdNgp1/fspi8djvwEagPfewfwaNn e6fGGuZD6YDQ/7GYVOnezG0tHMt9cKbmTyWGYPFya4TyHRcw1cOy8pViebZgNydE rI1UlGuwJViiRkacVnML9HluQJgzm/C3FIMDka2EBekUvg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (008.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id ZLo67KyiN4eh; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:02:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.96.154.26] (unknown [104.132.0.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4W2x5j1PJvz6Cnk95; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <84e024ba-b921-481c-a83d-eec0dd0e8328@acm.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 10:02:48 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] block: Add ioprio to block_rq tracepoint To: dongliang cui Cc: Dongliang Cui , axboe@kernel.dk, rostedt@goodmis.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, ebiggers@kernel.org, ke.wang@unisoc.com, hongyu.jin.cn@gmail.com, niuzhiguo84@gmail.com, hao_hao.wang@unisoc.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akailash@google.com References: <20240614074936.113659-1-dongliang.cui@unisoc.com> <7d0f68b8-ecdb-45fb-ae10-954eac5ed32c@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/17/24 12:59 AM, dongliang cui wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:41=E2=80=AFAM Bart Van Assche wrote: >> >> On 6/14/24 12:49 AM, Dongliang Cui wrote: >>> - TP_printk("%d,%d %s (%s) %llu + %u [%d]", >>> + TP_printk("%d,%d %s (%s) %llu + %u %s,%u,%u [%d]", >>> MAJOR(__entry->dev), MINOR(__entry->dev), >>> __entry->rwbs, __get_str(cmd), >>> - (unsigned long long)__entry->sector, >>> - __entry->nr_sector, 0) >>> + (unsigned long long)__entry->sector, __entry->nr_sect= or, >>> + __print_symbolic(IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(__entry->ioprio), >>> + IOPRIO_CLASS_STRINGS), >>> + IOPRIO_PRIO_HINT(__entry->ioprio), >>> + IOPRIO_PRIO_LEVEL(__entry->ioprio), 0) >>> ); >> >> Do we really want to include the constant "[0]" in the tracing output? > This is how it is printed in the source code. > From the code flow point of view, there is no need to print this value > in trace_block_rq_requeue. > Do we need to consider the issue of uniform printing format? If not, I > think we can delete it. I'm not aware of any other tracing statement that prints out a constant. Is there perhaps something that I'm missing or overlooking? Thanks, Bart.