Re: [tip:perf/core] tracing: Add DEFINE_EVENT(),DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT() support to docbook

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > > >  DECLARE_CLASS_AND_DEFINE_EVENT()
> > > 
> > > Hm, that's a bit too long. How about 'DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT()' as a 
> > > compromise? It's similarly short-ish to TRACE_EVENT(), and it also 
> > > conveys the fact that we create both a class and an event there.
> > > 
> > > The full series would thus be:
> > > 
> > > 	DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS
> > > 	DEFINE_EVENT
> > > 	DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT
> > > 
> > > hm?
> > 
> > I thought about that too, but it actually makes it more confusing. 
> > Because, looking at this with a fresh POV, I would think that after I 
> > declare a class, I would use DEFINE_CLASS_EVENT with that class.
> 
> yeah. Hence was my second-best choice 'DEFINE_STANDALONE_EVENT' or 
> 'DEFINE_SINGLE_EVENT' - to stress the special nature it, and to actually 
> nudge people towards creating classes of events instead of doing 
> separate, standalone points. (which are a waste in the majority of 
> cases)

But the current TRACE_EVENT is still defining a class. Thus, you could
create a TRACE_EVENT (or whatever it is called) and then create
DEFINE_EVENTs based on the TRACE_EVENT.

That's why I want a name that describes this.

DEFINE_EVENT_CLASS?

Perhaps that's the best.

DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS - only creates a class
DEFINE_EVENT - defines an event based off of a class
DEFINE_EVENT_CLASS - creates a class and defines an event by the same name

Perhaps this is best in keeping with linux kernel naming conventions?

-- Steve


-- Steve


--
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/