Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: add tracepoint for runtime_status changes

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:57:03 -0800
Vilas Bhat <vilasbhat@xxxxxxxxxx> 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