(added Christoph since he was the one to recommend the template creation) On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 19:12 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() doesnt really define an event visible to the user > yet though. It defines functions internally (to be used by the real > definition of the event) - but not visible externally really. > > So the real 'definition' of an event happens with DEFINE_EVENT() - in > the logical model of this. > > So the logical model is clear: > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(class); > > DEFINE_EVENT(class, event1); > DEFINE_EVENT(class, event2); > DEFINE_EVENT(class, event3); > ... > > # later: > # DEFINE_STANDALONE_EVENT(event) I think that name sounds even uglier than DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT :-/ I'm fine with the DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS and DEFINE_EVENT, but I'm unsure what to rename TRACE_EVENT as. I know its still pretty new, but it's being used quite a bit. So it should take some extra thought. I guess DEFINE_EVENT_CLASS is probably not good, although this would be the combination of DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS and DEFINE_EVENT which it actually is. DECLARE_DEFINE_EVENT? *naw* DEFINE_DECLARED_EVENT? Or we could go with DECLARE_EVENT(), DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() and DEFINE_EVENT_CLASS_INSTANCE()? > > And the logical model is what matters: that's what developers will use. > They'll use these constructs based on the logical model, nobody sane > will look into the CPP magic ;-) > > And yes, we occasionally have to revisit our naming choices - especially > when mistakes/misnomers become apparent. Agreed, but lets discuss it before we commit it to a non-rebase branch. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html