linux-kernel - Re: move gfs2 tracepoints to inclue/trace/events dir

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091009162051.GB2647@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:20:51 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Cc:	cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: move gfs2 tracepoints to inclue/trace/events dir

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 05:05:19PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:01 -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to move the gfs2 tracepoints to the the common
> > include/trace/events directory along with all of the other trace events.
> > It makes understanding what tracepoints are available easier, and I see
> > no reason why gfs2 should be different. For example, 'ext4.h' is already
> > in the include/trace/events directory.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > -Jason
> > 
> I've no objection to that, it sounds like a good plan. Should I stick
> this in the GFS2 tree, or would you rather keep it in the trace tree? I
> was thinking probably the GFS2 tree would be better as it reduces the
> chances of any future conflicts.

gfs2 tree works for me.

thanks,

-Jason

--
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/