Re: trace/events: DECLARE vs DEFINE semantic

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) 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@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 

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