[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812311332410.6262@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:33:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>
cc: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@...il.com>
Subject: Re: ftrace behaviour (was: [PATCH] ftrace: introduce
tracing_reset_online_cpus() helper)
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> "tracing_on" is not a function call, so nesting does not make sense.
> It is a file in debugfs, and therefore an end user interface. I am only
> talking about the debugfs files, not functions. Only developers use
> functions and devels can be expected to find the implementation and
> read the fine documentation.
>
> How about /debug/tracing/recording with values 0 and 1?
> That would be a clear distinction to /debug/tracing/tracing_enabled.
> I have also wondered about the "tracing_" prefix, the files are
> already in the tracing/ directory.
>
> I am just trying to think what file names would make sense in
> debugfs. I completely agree with you on function naming, but should
> the file have the same name as the function? Sure, for developers
> it would be easier to remember, but the name might not make any
> sense unless you know the internal implementation.
>
> If something else than tracing starts to use the ring buffer
> facility, we have to think about the names again. Until then,
> just my 2c. :-)
Since this really only enables or disables the ring buffer, perhaps
"ringbuffer_enabled" is the way to go?
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists