From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] tracing/events: Add bounce tracing to swiotbl
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:58:52 +0100
Message-ID: <524467CC.7040908@citrix.com>
References: <1378325465-10384-1-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
	<5239CF01.1010001@citrix.com>
	<20130925175649.GC7253@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130925175649.GC7253@phenom.dumpdata.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

On 25/09/13 18:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:04:17PM +0100, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I haven't got a reply in the past 2 weeks, so I would like to bump
>> the patch, just to make sure it haven't fell off the radar.
>
> Hey,
>
> I have this in my queue to put on 3.13 as it is past the merge window.
> .. with that in mind:
>
>
> .. snip..
>>> +	TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
>>> +		"size=%zu swiotlb_force=%x",
>>> +		__get_str(dev_name),
>>> +		__entry->dma_mask,
>>> +		(unsigned long long)__entry->dev_addr,
>>> +		__entry->size,
>>> +		__entry->swiotlb_force)
>
> Would it make sense to do something like this:
>
> 		__entry->swiotlb_force ? "swiotlb_force" : "")
>

I would then rather do:

+	TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
+		"size=%zu swiotlb_force=",
+               __entry->swiotlb_force ? " yes" : "no",
+		__get_str(dev_name),

Or do you mean?:

+	TP_printk("dev_name: %s dma_mask=%llx dev_addr=%llx "
+		"size=%zu",
+               __entry->swiotlb_force ? " swiotlb_force" : "",
+		__get_str(dev_name),

This one doesn't tell you explicitly if swiotlb_force is NOT set, maybe 
that's not so good? And adds a bit of complexity to your grep regexp?
Either way is fine with me, but I think "swiotlb_force=0|1" is also 
pretty straightforward to understand, and I guess it makes printk 
slightly faster (I assume the conditional operator gives a little bit of 
overhead)

Regards,

Zoli