[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259795605.12870.104.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:13:25 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
mingo@...hat.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 15:08 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/02/2009 02:57 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >>
> >> 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)
> >
> > Yep, it looks good! It's self-descriptive and don't require to explain
> > what the thing is doing each time we refer to it. (however I feel a bit
> > sad for Fred, Wilma and Barney) ;)
> >
>
> Although you have to admit it's a bit confusing that:
>
> TRACE_EVENT = TRACE_CLASS + TRACE_CLASS_EVENT
>
> ... as opposed to ...
>
> TRACE_CLASS_EVENT = TRACE_CLASS + TRACE_EVENT
Fred, Wilma and Barney are sounding better by the second.
So, would you think:
TRACE_CLASS - Declare a class
TRACE_EVENT - defines an event for said class (different meaning than before)
TRACE_CLASS_EVENT - Declares a class and an event
is the better naming?
-- 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