[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259794005.12870.102.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:46:45 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com, wcohen@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, jbaron@...hat.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: trace/events: DECLARE vs DEFINE semantic
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 17:36 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Or do you (or anyone else) have a better name?
>
> How about renaming DEFINE_EVENT to TRACE_EVENT_CLASS?
>
> DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(y, ...) declare an event-class y
> TRACE_EVENT_CLASS(x, y, ...) define/declare a trace event x from event-class y
> TRACE_EVENT(x, ...) define/declare a trace event x
>
> Thus TRACE_EVENT_* implies that this macro will be expanded
> to both of definition and declaration.
> I don't think separating it is good idea from the viewpoint
> of maintaining code.
Hmm, what about just:
TRACE_CLASS - Declares a class
TRACE_CLASS_EVENT - defines an event for said class
TRACE_EVENT - Declares a class and defines an event (as is today)
-- 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