Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:39 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/