On Fri, 15 May 2026 08:27:27 -0700 Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/15/26 6:59 AM, Vineeth Pillai (Google) wrote: > > static void ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, > > @@ -432,8 +432,8 @@ static void ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba > > *hba, > > if (!trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled()) > > return; > > > > - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, &rq_rsp->header, > > - &rq_rsp->qr, UFS_TSF_OSF); > > + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, &rq_rsp->header, > > + &rq_rsp->qr, UFS_TSF_OSF); > > } > > Instead of making this change, please remove the > trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled() call because it is redundant. You mean to remove the ufshcd_add_query_upiu_trace() function and just use a tracepoint where it is called? Makes sense. > > > static void ufshcd_add_tm_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba *hba, unsigned int > > tag, > > @@ -445,15 +445,15 @@ static void ufshcd_add_tm_upiu_trace(struct ufs_hba > > *hba, unsigned int tag, > > return; > > > > if (str_t == UFS_TM_SEND) > > - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > > - &descp->upiu_req.req_header, > > - &descp->upiu_req.input_param1, > > - UFS_TSF_TM_INPUT); > > + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > > + &descp->upiu_req.req_header, > > + &descp->upiu_req.input_param1, > > + UFS_TSF_TM_INPUT); > > else > > - trace_ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > > - &descp->upiu_rsp.rsp_header, > > - &descp->upiu_rsp.output_param1, > > - UFS_TSF_TM_OUTPUT); > > + trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(hba, str_t, > > + &descp->upiu_rsp.rsp_header, > > + &descp->upiu_rsp.output_param1, > > + UFS_TSF_TM_OUTPUT); > > } > > Same comment here: I think it would be better to remove the > trace_ufshcd_upiu_enabled() call rather than > changing trace_ufshcd_upiu() into trace_call__ufshcd_upiu(). Well, removing it here would mean placing the if (str == UFS_TM_SEND) into the code and processing it even when tracing is disabled. With the trace_*_enabled() helper, it's all a nop. -- Steve
