On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 20:20 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > DECLARE_DEFINE_EVENT? *naw* > > > > DEFINE_DECLARED_EVENT? > > > > Or we could go with DECLARE_EVENT(), DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() and > > DEFINE_EVENT_CLASS_INSTANCE()? > > I think the most common one should be the shortest, and the most common > one will be DEFINE_EVENT() - that's short enough already IMO. The above were ideas for replacing TRACE_EVENT, not the current DEFINE_EVENT. > > I think we generally want to encourage the creation of classes of > events, not myriads of standalone events, each with their own call > signature, record format and printouts. > > In that sense making the TRACE_EVENT() one longer would achieve that > goal of discouraging its over-use: DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT() tells the > developer that it's an event of it's kind. But I do agree with Frederic that this can be a little confusing, since it makes it sound like DEFINE_EVENT is for multiple events. What about saying exactly what it does? DECLARE_AND_DEFINE_EVENT() Come to think of it, since current TRACE_EVENT is now just: #define TRACE_EVENT() \ TRACE_EVENT_TEMPLATE() \ DEFINE_EVENT This may make the most sense. I haven't tried it, but I believe that you could even base other events off of the TRACE_EVENT. That is: TRACE_EVENT(x, ...); DEFINE_EVENT(x, y, ...); And y would use x as its class. So going back to your scheme of DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(), it may make sense to have DECLARE_AND_DEFINE_EVENT(). DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(class, ...); DEFINE_EVENT(class, foo, ...); DECLARE_AND_DEFINE_EVENT(bar, ...); DEFINE_EVENT(bar, zoo, ...); May work. -- 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
|