linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] tools lib traceevent: Install fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:13:52 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] tools lib traceevent: Install fixes

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:01:44 +0200
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:

> > BTW, before we start making this ready for their own libraries, I'd
> > like to make some changes with the naming convention. Mainly with
> > event_format and format_field.
> > 
> > Perhaps we should change them to pevent_event and pevent_field?  
> 
> right, it does not have any global prefix for public symbols
> 
> I'd actualy expect something like 'traceevent_',
> but 'pevent' is ok as well I guess

OK, what's the consensus here? Should we keep "pevent_" or switch to
the longer "traceevent_"?

I want to make the patch that gets this ready to ship!

-- Steve