On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 05:11:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:39:24 -0700 > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Nit, but I would probably put the above TRACE_EVENT() below the two > > > > DEFINE_EVENT()s below. That way we have all the DEFINE_EVENT()s for a > > > > specific DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() together. Otherwise people may get confused. > > > > > > I thought about that, too. The argument for the order I chose is that > > > having start at the start and stop at the end is also intuitive. > > > > > > But I don't care much and would let the watchdog guys decide what they > > > prefer. > > > > > > @Wim+Guenter: Feel free to reorder at application time or ask for a v3 > > > if this v2 doesn't fit your preference. > > > > For my part I would prefer a version with Steven's Reviewed-by: tag, > > whatever it is. > > I much rather have the DEFINE_EVENTS followed by the DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() > as that's what most people look for. > > For start and stop being together, I believe that will not trip many people > up, where as the DEFINE_EVENTS() scattering will. > I agree. Uwe, please send v3 with those changes. Thanks, Guenter
