Messages in this thread | | | From | Vilas Bhat <> | Date | Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:58 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: add tracepoint for runtime_status changes |
| |
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:33 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:57:03 -0800 > Vilas Bhat <vilasbhat@google.com> wrote: > > > > You could do what everyone else does: > > > > > > #define RPM_STATUS_STRINGS \ > > > EM( RPM_INVALID, "RPM_INVALID" ) \ > > > EM( RPM_ACTIVE, "RPM_ACTIVE" ) \ > > > EM( RPM_RESUMING, "RPM_RESUMING" ) \ > > > EM( RPM_SUSPENDED, "RPM_SUSPENDED" ) \ > > > EMe( RPM_SUSPENDING, "RPM_SUSPENDING" ) > > > > > > #undef EM > > > #undef EMe > > > #define EM(a, b) TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(a); > > > #define EMe(a, b) TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(a); > > > > > > RPM_STATUS_STRINGS > > > > > > #undef EM > > > #undef EMe > > > #define EM(a, b) { a, b }, > > > #define EMe(a, b) { a, b } > > > > > > > Thanks for the comment, Steven. I did notice both methods of defining > > enum values for tracepoints and chose this method because it felt > > clearer. Could you clarify on why the method you suggested is > > preferred? > > > > Sure. One big reason: It removes duplication. > > If you add another enum to the list, you only need to update it in one > place. And it prevents the two from getting out of sync. > > -- Steve
That makes sense! Thanks. I will revise the patch and send a new version soon.
| |