From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net (011.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.14]) (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 5814249552D; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:27:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778858865; cv=none; b=G6WF8AsjEVmGvu2/jjm1R8r8UMkIE3X5OOyaf3bkI1ueZW+kSfBr85kQCG+y6uPa4Up3rNPWJCVNZbuQ0MIegzg17FYap3hid0J38DaLLqW/V1xdDCrDqC+RPfRscsNGnm2WVrJGNBsm6c82D9FKa2P1tOfUuOrldxk+CVpgNuE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778858865; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dx8k3BK8KQImG9hsFL//BzOwDd524UUThJswDm6HbmQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=MlKJhvjSkC+d4QXydhkVoXnAXfr5/mdzm3kJxCAXry1dcLe/iq1BOb18cvAzMKz7YC1SSw5y/bcpIRNUUTIsfLvGnH+X5P6LSGBmXqoCKE+KbtIYSlEsZWOLzJD0MNzLOpVJsqV4qOJlbNPOkW8j381+32ZtzFNqdivqVVNTsoA= 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=Ju1zWl5J; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 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="Ju1zWl5J" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gHB083bDJz1XM6Jl; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:27:36 +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=1778858852; x=1781450853; bh=OG2WY8/5i/n3+u6CBSE3CYVE vqJAu+jfD7jrcYXWIA4=; b=Ju1zWl5JvPolg0DvFeoBKeCHTswSZqsoWCmwnwOe ujMBT5txoyZDt4S1pwxpX/vl+7FolU2XdH9lGADnRTzOvio+H3P1mwIWM6iYSDXK npK7fQCfI1gJb0XjT14UnUDxSnmunZzS/yg1XZ5m4cNVRCYkAAiXBqgu9+M11JvI BKQZdG47hGWNYqvZ4We2a6mkVTYqm7gzGQnJHGzfbfmFiaYwgHFBYJ6WLGysS+Zs xKw34IlD1h0KBXt/uxzNmYPfmHY+D9yXksOwgH7ZlPiMqn+1TyUxfAlsSc1DpzqJ ukaNBCiP/nJfqCKhi1An+b9lSAbNSCzjJT1M6VvwHPecqg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (011.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id YeEnYe6cy7iZ; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.50.14] (c-73-231-117-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.117.72]) (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 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4gHB011xXTz1XM5kt; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <9fde73e7-0108-48d7-a1a0-ccc9776beb5c@acm.org> Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 08:27:27 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] scsi: ufs: Use trace_call__##name() at guarded tracepoint call sites To: "Vineeth Pillai (Google)" , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra References: <20260515135946.2238888-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20260515135946.2238888-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/15/26 6:59 AM, Vineeth Pillai (Google) wrote: > static void ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, > @@ -432,8 +432,8 @@ static void ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, > if (!trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled()) > return; > > - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, &rq_rsp->header, > - &rq_rsp->qr, UFS_TSF_OSF); > + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, &rq_rsp->header, > + &rq_rsp->qr, UFS_TSF_OSF); > } Instead of making this change, please remove the trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled() call because it is redundant. > static void ufshcd_add_tm_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int tag, > @@ -445,15 +445,15 @@ static void ufshcd_add_tm_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int tag, > return; > > if (str_t == UFS_TM_SEND) > - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > - &descp->upiu_req.req_header, > - &descp->upiu_req.input_param1, > - UFS_TSF_TM_INPUT); > + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > + &descp->upiu_req.req_header, > + &descp->upiu_req.input_param1, > + UFS_TSF_TM_INPUT); > else > - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > - &descp->upiu_rsp.rsp_header, > - &descp->upiu_rsp.output_param1, > - UFS_TSF_TM_OUTPUT); > + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > + &descp->upiu_rsp.rsp_header, > + &descp->upiu_rsp.output_param1, > + UFS_TSF_TM_OUTPUT); > } Same comment here: I think it would be better to remove the trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled() call rather than changing trace_ufshcd_upiu() into trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(). Thanks, Bart.