On 10/29/2018 04:00 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > 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 I am just questioning the rationale for the stat2 name. I am not advocating to use stat_noirqs neither. BTW, since you are making stat2 compatible with stat, will that be easier from the user API perspective if we use a sysctl parameter to turn on and off IRQs reporting for /proc/stat, for example? I know that there are pros and cons for each approach, I just want to consider all the available options and choose the best one. Cheers, Longman
