Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-75301-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:35:10 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Vilas Bhat <vilasbhat@google.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
 Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Saravana Kannan
 <saravanak@google.com>, kernel-team@android.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: add tracepoint for runtime_status
 changes
Message-ID: <20240221133510.70b9c205@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAJNZHTTeFJvCjxUX_e_RVtJWcXW=1cjdF8EqvojnObm7jiyLKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240221164112.846409-1-vilasbhat@google.com>
	<20240221121420.2e32fd00@gandalf.local.home>
	<CAJNZHTTeFJvCjxUX_e_RVtJWcXW=1cjdF8EqvojnObm7jiyLKg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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