On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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) But the current TRACE_EVENT is still defining a class. Thus, you could create a TRACE_EVENT (or whatever it is called) and then create DEFINE_EVENTs based on the TRACE_EVENT. That's why I want a name that describes this. DEFINE_EVENT_CLASS? Perhaps that's the best. DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS - only creates a class DEFINE_EVENT - defines an event based off of a class DEFINE_EVENT_CLASS - creates a class and defines an event by the same name Perhaps this is best in keeping with linux kernel naming conventions? -- Steve -- 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
|