On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:57:03 -0800
Vilas Bhat <vilasb...@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
