Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755811AbZAFXjD (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:39:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751773AbZAFXix (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:38:53 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:48780 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751677AbZAFXiw (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:38:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:38:47 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kobayashi.kk@ncos.nec.co.jp Subject: Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans Message-Id: <20090106153847.df96c8c0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090106232439.GC25103@infradead.org> References: <20090105004300.19ed52d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090106225744.GA10553@infradead.org> <20090106151344.0f146286.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090106232439.GC25103@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1390 Lines: 39 On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:39 -0500 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:13:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > (cc added) > > > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500 > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > softirq-introduce-statistics-for-softirq.patch > > > > proc-export-statistics-for-softirq-to-proc.patch > > > > proc-update-document-for-proc-softirqs-and-proc-stat.patch > > > > > > Why is this in procfs? > > > > softirq stuff in /proc seems appropriate? It's alongside > > /proc/interrupts. We could put it in /trendy-fs-of-the-day, but what > > would it gain us? > > debugfs seems to be the normal thing for these. hm. I'm not a huge fan of debugfs (for other reasons, nicely explained by Matt Mackall a while back). But I don't think we actually *gain* anything by putting softirq stats into debugfs, whereas it makes sense that it lives in /proc? otoh, the internal implementation might be nicer if it uses debugfs helper infrastructure. But the existing code is pretty straightforward. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/