Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754323AbZLBOnw (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:43:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753135AbZLBOnv (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:43:51 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:56469 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751791AbZLBOnv (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:43:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:43:34 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Steven Rostedt Cc: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, wcohen@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, jbaron@redhat.com, mhiramat@redhat.com, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] tracing: Add DEFINE_EVENT(), DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT() support to docbook Message-ID: <20091202144334.GA30359@elte.hu> References: <200912011718.nB1HIn7t011371@int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1259761934.12870.12.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20091202140128.GA2611@elte.hu> <1259764109.12870.37.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259764109.12870.37.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1237 Lines: 35 * Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > DECLARE_CLASS_AND_DEFINE_EVENT() > > > > Hm, that's a bit too long. How about 'DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT()' as a > > compromise? It's similarly short-ish to TRACE_EVENT(), and it also > > conveys the fact that we create both a class and an event there. > > > > The full series would thus be: > > > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS > > DEFINE_EVENT > > DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT > > > > hm? > > I thought about that too, but it actually makes it more confusing. > Because, looking at this with a fresh POV, I would think that after I > declare a class, I would use DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT with that class. yeah. Hence was my second-best choice 'DEFINE_STANDALONE_EVENT' or 'DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT' - to stress the special nature it, and to actually nudge people towards creating classes of events instead of doing separate, standalone points. (which are a waste in the majority of cases) Ingo -- 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/