Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 13:00:50 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file
Message-ID: <20181029200050.iejuxckzbm742dmw@linux-r8p5>
References: <20181029192521.23059-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <0afed890-7c5a-93ee-cdb9-e30775bd9cf1@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0afed890-7c5a-93ee-cdb9-e30775bd9cf1@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Waiman Long wrote:

>I am wondering if /proc/stat_noirqs will be a more descriptive name of
>the intent of this new procfs file or we should just go with the more
>generic stat2 name.

The reason why I went with '2' instead of a more rescriptive name
was that I think of the call as a drop-in replacement/extention to
stat. Therefore the same fields are maintained, otherwise with stat_noirqs
I feel like instead of zeroing out, they should just be removed.

But otoh, I have no strong objection in renaming either.

Thanks,
Davidlohr