Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:05:53 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/10] ext4: Improve FC trace events
Message-ID: <20220310110553.431cc997@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1646922487.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
References: <cover.1646922487.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 21:28:54 +0530
Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Note:- I still couldn't figure out how to expose EXT4_FC_REASON_MAX in patch-2
> which (I think) might be (only) needed by trace-cmd or perf record for trace_ext4_fc_stats.
> But it seems "cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe" gives the right output
> for ext4_fc_stats trace event (as shown below).
> 
> So with above reasoning, do you think we should take these patches in?
> And we can later see how to provide EXT4_FC_REASON_MAX definition available to
> libtraceevent?

I don't see EXT4_FC_REASON_MAX being used in the TP_printk(). If it isn't
used there, it doesn't need to be exposed. Or did I miss something?

-- Steve