On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 00:13 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > 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() > > > It tells so much that it is confusing :) Information overload huh? ;-) > > > > > > 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, ...); > > > > Yep, or DEFINE_EVENT_NOCLASS. Well it may not be upper class, but I wouldn't say it has no class ;-) But seriously, that is more misleading. It is a class. Remember, that TRACE_EVENT is both a class and a define. With the new names for template trace_event is: #define TRACE_EVENT(name, ...) \ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(name, ...); \ DEFINE_EVENT(name, name, ...); So TRACE_EVENT really is a DECLARE_CLASS_AND_DEFINE_EVENT(name, ...); -- Steve > > > > > 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
|