Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing, boottrace: Move include/trace/boot.h toinclude/linux/boottrace.h

[Ingo Molnar]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:54:11AM +0800, Zhaolei wrote:
> > Impact: refactor code, no functionality changed
> > 
> > Files in include/trace/ should be definition of tracepoints, and header
> > file for boot trace should put to include/linux/.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> Until now I had the opinion that it's good to let every tracing 
> headers to be placed in include/trace/* because they are not 
> useful for anything else than the tracer itself so that we don't 
> encumber include/linux for private things.
> 
> So that we have both tracepoints/trace_events plus the low-level 
> tracers headers in include/trace/*
> 
> I'm not opposite to this change, but seeing this patch and the 
> recent divide of kmemtrace headers, I would like to know the 
> opinion of Ingo and Steven about the strict role of 
> include/trace/* Is it only for tracepoints-like bits, or oslo 
> intended for every private tracing purposes?

The header split itself is probably good to do - to keep the 'pure' 
portions of tracepoint definitions cleanly separated from more 
functional details like kmem tracer initialization.

The move to include/linux/ is indeed more debatable. I think if a 
header says 'footrace.h' in its name, it could easily be in 
include/trace/foo.h instead? Makes for a tidier structure - 
include/linux/ is massively over-crowded already.

Steve, 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/