Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-75323-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240221164112.846409-1-vilasbhat@google.com> <20240221121420.2e32fd00@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAJNZHTTeFJvCjxUX_e_RVtJWcXW=1cjdF8EqvojnObm7jiyLKg@mail.gmail.com> <20240221133510.70b9c205@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20240221133510.70b9c205@gandalf.local.home>
From: Vilas Bhat <vilasbhat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJNZHTRmxm-s=4ytRinS4pBxNsSkBqLMyXjRnwWfAm0HzRw43Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: add tracepoint for runtime_status changes
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:33=E2=80=AFAM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.or=
g> wrote:
>
> 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

That makes sense! Thanks. I will revise the patch and send a new version so=
on.