On 13.09.19 11:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.09.2019 15:28, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
+++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
@@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ static s_time_t lock_profile_start;
static struct lock_profile_anc *lock_profile_ancs;
static struct lock_profile_qhead lock_profile_glb_q;
static spinlock_t lock_profile_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
+static const char *lock_profile_nofunc = __PRETTY_FUNCTION__;
const also for the variable itself?
@@ -371,8 +372,10 @@ static void spinlock_profile_print_elem(struct
lock_profile *data,
printk("%s ", type);
if ( idx != LOCKPROF_IDX_NONE )
printk("%d ", idx);
- printk("%s: addr=%p, lockval=%08x, ", data->name, lock,
- lock->tickets.head_tail);
+ printk("%s", data->name);
+ if ( data->func && strcmp(data->func, lock_profile_nofunc) )
+ printk("@%s", data->func);
+ printk(": addr=%p, lockval=%08x, ", lock, lock->tickets.head_tail);
As long as this is used from a key handler only, I guess the
splitting of the printk()s isn't much of a problem.
@@ -427,7 +430,14 @@ static void spinlock_profile_ucopy_elem(struct
lock_profile *data,
if ( p->pc->nr_elem < p->pc->max_elem )
{
- safe_strcpy(elem.name, data->name);
+ if ( data->func && strcmp(data->func, lock_profile_nofunc) )
+ {
+ snprintf(elem.name, sizeof(elem.name), "%s@%s", data->name,
+ data->func);
+ elem.name[sizeof(elem.name) - 1] = 0;
This isn't needed after snprintf(), is it?
With the two suggested adjustments (provided you agree, and
which could probably be done while committing)
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Yes, I agree, thanks
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
