Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:28:07 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing, boottrace: Move include/trace/boot.h to include/linux/boottrace.h |
| |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:54:11AM +0800, Zhaolei wrote: > > > > Impact: refactor code, no functionality changed > > > > > > > > Files in include/trace/ should be definition of tracepoints, and header > > > > file for boot trace should put to include/linux/. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > Until now I had the opinion that it's good to let every tracing > > > headers to be placed in include/trace/* because they are not > > > useful for anything else than the tracer itself so that we don't > > > encumber include/linux for private things. > > > > > > So that we have both tracepoints/trace_events plus the low-level > > > tracers headers in include/trace/* > > > > > > I'm not opposite to this change, but seeing this patch and the > > > recent divide of kmemtrace headers, I would like to know the > > > opinion of Ingo and Steven about the strict role of > > > include/trace/* Is it only for tracepoints-like bits, or oslo > > > intended for every private tracing purposes? > > > > The header split itself is probably good to do - to keep the 'pure' > > portions of tracepoint definitions cleanly separated from more > > functional details like kmem tracer initialization. > > > > The move to include/linux/ is indeed more debatable. I think if a > > header says 'footrace.h' in its name, it could easily be in > > include/trace/foo.h instead? Makes for a tidier structure - > > include/linux/ is massively over-crowded already. > > > > Steve, what do you think? > > We actually discussed this a little at the Linux Collaboration > Summit. The idea was to keep only the tracepoints aka TRACE_EVENT > code in include/trace/ and perhaps special headers that work with > the TRACE_EVENT macros. But the infrastructure of the tracers > would stay in include/linux. > > The rational is that we have a separate directory reserved only > for trace points / trace events. Adding more headers into that > directory would make it a bit harder to see right away what trace > events where defined for a particular kernel source.
Hm, i have to say that is true committee design ;-)
The sane thing would be to put event headers into include/trace/events/ and put more generic/utility headers into include/trace/.
Reserving a full subdirectory for one singular purpose is a needless waste of a nice (and unique) name-space resource.
Ingo
| |