Re: [PATCH v6] Unified trace buffer

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I started using the rb_ because I was constantly breaking the 80 character 
> > line limit with ring_buffer ;-)   OK, for v8, I'll rename all static 
> > internal functions to rb_ and keep the global ones ring_buffer_
> 
> It would probably be better to use something else than 'rb_', because that 
> prefix is already used by the red-black trees, and exported as such (eg 
> "rb_next()" etc).

Good point.

> 
> But at least as long as it's static, it's probably not _too_ noticeable if 
> the rest of the names don't overlap. We _do_ include <linux/rbtree.h>  
> almost everywhere, since we use those things in the VM, in timers etc, so 
> it comes in through pretty much all headers.

Well, I just compiled it and it didn't have any name collisions, but that 
doesn't mean that this wont change in the future.

What would you suggest?  buffer_ ? ringbuf_ ?

-- 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/