From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF916C433EF
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Sun,  8 May 2022 20:52:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix)
	id 25A126B0071; Sun,  8 May 2022 16:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40)
	id 208906B0073; Sun,  8 May 2022 16:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042)
	id 0D1DF6B0074; Sun,  8 May 2022 16:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0EA6B0071
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Sun,  8 May 2022 16:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1])
	by unirelay12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C04120C95
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Sun,  8 May 2022 20:52:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-FDA: 79443772926.22.457C30B
Received: from relay3.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16])
	by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE1E40064
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Sun,  8 May 2022 20:51:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from omf16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1])
	by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D82630341;
	Sun,  8 May 2022 20:52:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0F54C20014;
	Sun,  8 May 2022 20:51:55 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <b8feb625dd2ba0d0dfc298a2f39ca1d8368ba5c9.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm] tracing: incorrect gfp_t conversion
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	kernel@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 13:51:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20220507154835.4d4d737d8eed579969f15938@linux-foundation.org>
References: <e1c09bbb-2c58-a986-c704-1db538da905a@openvz.org>
	 <331d88fe-f4f7-657c-02a2-d977f15fbff6@openvz.org>
	 <20220507123728.f20d977eba9fbb66bddee722@linux-foundation.org>
	 <8b1cfefa-da7d-3376-cf04-1ff77dab8170@openvz.org>
	 <20220507154835.4d4d737d8eed579969f15938@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4-1ubuntu2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D
X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX18Yu0PF9VUwVKahCSWHsG2R6SAcUhY02Eo=
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3FE1E40064
X-Stat-Signature: ph9j6s7z4epswkkz7h4tr76stc3bhaxm
Authentication-Results: imf12.hostedemail.com;
	dkim=none;
	dmarc=none;
	spf=none (imf12.hostedemail.com: domain of joe@perches.com has no SPF policy when checking 216.40.44.16) smtp.mailfrom=joe@perches.com
X-HE-Tag-Orig: 1652043115-837159
X-Rspam-User: 
X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08
X-HE-Tag: 1652043103-933308
X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000022, version=1.2.4
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

On Sat, 2022-05-07 at 15:48 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2022 01:28:58 +0300 Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 5/7/22 22:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 7 May 2022 22:02:05 +0300 Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org> wrote:
> > > > +	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_KERNEL,		"GFP_KERNEL"},		\
> > > > +	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_NOFS,		"GFP_NOFS"},		\
> > > 
> > > This got all repetitive, line-wrappy and ugly :(
> > > 
> > > What do we think of something silly like this?
> > 
> > > --- a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h~tracing-incorrect-gfp_t-conversion-fix
> > > +++ a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
> > > @@ -13,53 +13,57 @@
> > >   * Thus most bits set go first.
> > >   */
> > >  
> > > +#define FUL __force unsigned long
> > > +
> > >  #define __def_gfpflag_names						\
> > > -	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
> > > -	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT,	"GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \
> > ...
> > > +	{(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
> > > +	{(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT,	"GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \
> > 
> > 
> > I think it's a good idea, and I regret it was your idea and not mine.
> 
> heh
> 
> > Should I resend my patch with these changes or would you prefer 
> > to keep your patch as a separate one?
> 
> I did the below.  I'll squash them together later.

Very repetitive indeed.

Why not use another stringifying macro?

Maybe something like:

#define gfpflag_string(GFP)	\
	{(__force unsigned long)GFP, #GFP)}

#define __def_gfpflag_names			\
	gfp_flag_string(GFP_TRANSHUGE),		\
	etc...