Re: [PATCH mm] tracing: incorrect gfp_t conversion

[Vasily Averin]

On 5/7/22 22:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 22:02:05 +0300 Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_KERNEL,		"GFP_KERNEL"},		\
>> +	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_NOFS,		"GFP_NOFS"},		\
> 
> This got all repetitive, line-wrappy and ugly :(
> 
> What do we think of something silly like this?

> --- a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h~tracing-incorrect-gfp_t-conversion-fix
> +++ a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
> @@ -13,53 +13,57 @@
>   * Thus most bits set go first.
>   */
>  
> +#define FUL __force unsigned long
> +
>  #define __def_gfpflag_names						\
> -	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
> -	{(__force unsigned long)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT,	"GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \
...
> +	{(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE,		"GFP_TRANSHUGE"},	\
> +	{(FUL)GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT,	"GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT"}, \


I think it's a good idea, and I regret it was your idea and not mine.

Should I resend my patch with these changes or would you prefer 
to keep your patch as a separate one?

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin