Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:38:47 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans |
| |
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:39 -0500 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:13:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > (cc added) > > > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500 > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > softirq-introduce-statistics-for-softirq.patch > > > > proc-export-statistics-for-softirq-to-proc.patch > > > > proc-update-document-for-proc-softirqs-and-proc-stat.patch > > > > > > Why is this in procfs? > > > > softirq stuff in /proc seems appropriate? It's alongside > > /proc/interrupts. We could put it in /trendy-fs-of-the-day, but what > > would it gain us? > > debugfs seems to be the normal thing for these.
hm. I'm not a huge fan of debugfs (for other reasons, nicely explained by Matt Mackall a while back).
But I don't think we actually *gain* anything by putting softirq stats into debugfs, whereas it makes sense that it lives in /proc?
otoh, the internal implementation might be nicer if it uses debugfs helper infrastructure. But the existing code is pretty straightforward.
| |