lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: trace/events: DECLARE vs DEFINE semantic
    * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
    > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 17:36 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
    >
    > > > Or do you (or anyone else) have a better name?
    > >
    > > How about renaming DEFINE_EVENT to TRACE_EVENT_CLASS?
    > >
    > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(y, ...) declare an event-class y
    > > TRACE_EVENT_CLASS(x, y, ...) define/declare a trace event x from event-class y
    > > TRACE_EVENT(x, ...) define/declare a trace event x
    > >
    > > Thus TRACE_EVENT_* implies that this macro will be expanded
    > > to both of definition and declaration.
    > > I don't think separating it is good idea from the viewpoint
    > > of maintaining code.
    >
    > Hmm, what about just:
    >
    > TRACE_CLASS - Declares a class
    > TRACE_CLASS_EVENT - defines an event for said class
    > TRACE_EVENT - Declares a class and defines an event (as is today)

    Yep, it looks good! It's self-descriptive and don't require to explain
    what the thing is doing each time we refer to it. (however I feel a bit
    sad for Fred, Wilma and Barney) ;)

    For that semantic, you have my

    Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>

    Thanks,

    Mathieu

    >
    > -- Steve
    >
    >

    --
    Mathieu Desnoyers
    OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-03 00:05    [W:0.023 / U:121.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site