I agree with the non-optional part. -Sam On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Alyona Kiseleva > <akiselyova@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> I would like to propose something. >> >> There are a lot of perf counters in different places in code, but the most >> of them are undocumented. I found only one commented counter in OSD.cc code, >> but not for all metrics. Name of counter is not very clear as it's >> description, sometimes isn't at all. >> >> So, I have an idea, that it would be great, if perf schema would contain not >> only the counter type, but some description too. It can be added in >> PerfCountersBuilder methods - at first as optional parameter with empty >> string by default, later, may be, as required parameter. This short >> description could be saved in perf_counter_data_any_d struct together with >> other counter properties and appear in perf schema as the second counter >> property. > > I actually suspect that we'll be more successful if the description is > not optional. That way people are forced to provide a string of some > kind, instead of not knowing that it's even an option to do so. It's > more up-front work to provide a description for all the counters but > should make everything a lot more accessible to users than saying > "well, *some* of them have descriptions, if we were feeling > conscientious that day and knew about doing so". ;) > -Greg > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
