On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 06:51:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue,  4 Oct 2022 11:19:49 +0200
> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > +DEFINE_EVENT(watchdog_template, watchdog_start,
> > +	TP_PROTO(struct watchdog_device *wdd, int err),
> > +	TP_ARGS(wdd, err));
> > +
> > +TRACE_EVENT(watchdog_set_timeout,
> > +
> > +	TP_PROTO(struct watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned int timeout, int err),
> > +
> > +	TP_ARGS(wdd, timeout, err),
> > +
> > +	TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > +		__field(int, id)
> > +		__field(unsigned int, timeout)
> > +		__field(int, err)
> > +	),
> > +
> > +	TP_fast_assign(
> > +		__entry->id = wdd->id;
> > +		__entry->timeout = timeout;
> > +		__entry->err = err;
> > +	),
> > +
> > +	TP_printk("watchdog%d timeout=%u err=%d", __entry->id, __entry->timeout, __entry->err)
> > +);
> 
> Nit, but I would probably put the above TRACE_EVENT() below the two
> DEFINE_EVENT()s below. That way we have all the DEFINE_EVENT()s for a
> specific DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() together. Otherwise people may get confused.

I thought about that, too. The argument for the order I chose is that
having start at the start and stop at the end is also intuitive.

But I don't care much and would let the watchdog guys decide what they
prefer.

@Wim+Guenter: Feel free to reorder at application time or ask for a v3
if this v2 doesn't fit your preference.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |