Re: [PATCH 0/8] [GIT PULL] TRACE_EVENT for modules

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  include/trace/define_trace.h        |   79 ++++++
>  include/trace/ftrace.h              |  493 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/trace/irq.h                 |   56 ++++-
>  include/trace/irq_event_types.h     |   55 ----
>  include/trace/kmem.h                |  189 +++++++++++++-
>  include/trace/lockdep.h             |   55 ++++-
>  include/trace/lockdep_event_types.h |   57 ----
>  include/trace/sched.h               |  336 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  include/trace/sched_event_types.h   |  337 ------------------------
>  include/trace/skb.h                 |   39 +++-
>  include/trace/skb_event_types.h     |   38 ---
>  include/trace/trace_event_types.h   |    7 -
>  include/trace/trace_events.h        |    7 -

Detail: we still have include/trace/kmem_event_types.h around - is 
that intentional? It isnt actually used by anything so we can git-rm 
it.

Also, we mix tracepoint definition headers with other misc headers 
such as syscall.h or boot.h.

I think it would be cleaner and better sructured to have these 
centrally enumerated tracepoint definitions separated in 
include/trace/events/.

That sub-directory would _only_ include the TRACE_EVENT() 
definitions - nothing else. Hence it would also be a nice in-situ 
template collection for anyone adding new tracepoints. The existence 
of other headers really distracts from that.

What do you think?

	Ingo
--
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/