lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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.




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-07 00:41    [W:4.558 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site