Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] tracing/events: modify kmem print to new format

[Peter Zijlstra]

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?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/