* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > DECLARE_CLASS_AND_DEFINE_EVENT() > > > > Hm, that's a bit too long. How about 'DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT()' as a > > compromise? It's similarly short-ish to TRACE_EVENT(), and it also > > conveys the fact that we create both a class and an event there. > > > > The full series would thus be: > > > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS > > DEFINE_EVENT > > DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT > > > > hm? > > I thought about that too, but it actually makes it more confusing. > Because, looking at this with a fresh POV, I would think that after I > declare a class, I would use DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT with that class. yeah. Hence was my second-best choice 'DEFINE_STANDALONE_EVENT' or 'DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT' - to stress the special nature it, and to actually nudge people towards creating classes of events instead of doing separate, standalone points. (which are a waste in the majority of cases) Ingo -- 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
|