From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759041AbZFIIHO (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:07:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751216AbZFIIG6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:06:58 -0400 Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:56222 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751089AbZFIIG5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:06:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:06:56 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Minchan Kim , Christoph Hellwig , Rik van Riel , Pekka Enberg , Frederic Weisbecker , Theodore Tso , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , Zhaolei , KOSAKI Motohiro , Jason Baron , Jiaying Zhang Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] tracing/events: modify kmem print to new format Message-ID: <20090609080656.GB18380@csn.ul.ie> References: <20090609014534.790466803@goodmis.org> <20090609014747.188279837@goodmis.org> <1244531562.13761.9955.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1244531562.13761.9955.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:12:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 21:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > +#define show_gfp_flags(end...) \ > > + "0=GFP_NOWAIT," \ > > + "0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s," \ > > + "0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s," \ > > + "0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s," \ > > + "0x%lx=%s,0x%lx=%s>" end , \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, "GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE", \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_HIGHUSER, "GFP_HIGHUSER", \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_USER, "GFP_USER", \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_TEMPORARY, "GFP_TEMPORARY", \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_KERNEL, "GFP_KERNEL", \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_NOFS, "GFP_NOFS", \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_ATOMIC, "GFP_ATOMIC", \ > > + (unsigned long)GFP_NOIO, "GFP_NOIO", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_HIGH, "GFP_HIGH", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_WAIT, "GFP_WAIT", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_IO, "GFP_IO", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_COLD, "GFP_COLD", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_NOWARN, "GFP_NOWARN", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_REPEAT, "GFP_REPEAT", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_NOFAIL, "GFP_NOFAIL", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_NORETRY, "GFP_NORETRY", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_COMP, "GFP_COMP", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_ZERO, "GFP_ZERO", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_NOMEMALLOC, "GFP_NOMEMALLOC", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_HARDWALL, "GFP_HARDWALL", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_THISNODE, "GFP_THISNODE", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_RECLAIMABLE, "GFP_RECLAIMABLE", \ > > + (unsigned long)__GFP_MOVABLE, "GFP_MOVABLE" > > Just curious, how unhappy does stuff become when we add a __GFP_ flag > and forget to extend this table? > If it's the same behaviour as what I was looking at yesterday, it prints the remaining flags it doesn't recognise as the number. GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_DMA got outputted as |GFP_KERNEL|0x1| -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab