Re: [PATCH v9] Unified trace buffer
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sat Sep 27 2008 - 16:01:21 EST
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > RINGBUF_TYPE_PADDING
> >
> > yes, it's longer, but still, saner.
>
> I don't mind the extra typing, it is just a bit more difficult to keep
> in the 80 character line limit.
that's really not a hard limit, but yeah.
generally, with clean and simple functions it's easy to keep it.
> > yes, way too big. Sometimes we make savings from a 10 bytes function
> > already. (but it's always case dependent - if a function has a lot
> > of parameters then uninlining can hurt)
> >
> > the only exception would be if there's normally only a single
> > instantiation per tracer, and if it's in the absolute tracing
> > hotpath.
>
> It is a hot path in the internals. Perhaps I'll make an inline
> function in the interal code "rb_event_length" and have the other
> users call.
>
> unsigned ring_buffer_event(struct ring_buffer_event *event)
> {
> return rb_event_length(event);
> }
yeah, sounds sane.
> > no, it is not readable. My point was that you should do:
> > >
> > > RB_ENUM_TYPE, /*
> > > * Comment
> > > */
> > >
> > > The comment is not at the same line as the enum, which also looks
> > > unpleasing.
> >
> > but you did:
> >
> > > RB_ENUM_TYPE, /* Comment
> > > */
> >
> > So i suggested to fix it to:
> >
> > + RB_TYPE_TIME_EXTENT, /*
> > + * Extent the time delta
> > + * array[0] = time delta (28 .. 59)
> > + * size = 8 bytes
> > + */
> >
> > ok? I.e. "comment" should have the same visual properties as other
> > comments.
> >
> > I fully agree with moving it next to the enum, i sometimes use that
> > style too, it's a nice touch and more readable in this case than
> > comment-ahead. (which we use for statements)
>
> But then we have:
>
> RB_TYPE_PADDING, /*
> * Left over page padding
> * array is ignored
> * size is variable depending on
> * how much padding is needed
> */
> RB_TYPE_TIME_EXTENT, /*
> * Extent the time delta
> * array[0] = time delta (28 .. 59)
> * size = 8 bytes
> */
>
> Where it is not as easy to see which comment is with which enum.
> Especially when you have many enums. That's why I like the method I
> used with:
>
> RB_TYPE_PADDING, /* Left over page padding
> * array is ignored
> * size is variable depending on
> * how much padding is needed
> */
> RB_TYPE_TIME_EXTENT, /* Extent the time delta
> * array[0] = time delta (28 .. 59)
> * size = 8 bytes
> */
>
> Where it is very easy to notice which comment goes with which enum.
this:
> RB_TYPE_PADDING, /*
> * Left over page padding
> * array is ignored
> * size is variable depending on
> * how much padding is needed
> */
>
> RB_TYPE_TIME_EXTENT, /*
> * Extent the time delta
> * array[0] = time delta (28 .. 59)
> * size = 8 bytes
> */
or:
> /*
> * Left over page padding. 'array' is ignored,
> * 'size' is variable depending on how much padding is needed.
> */
> RB_TYPE_PADDING,
>
> /*
> * Extent the time delta,
> * array[0] = time delta (28 .. 59), size = 8 bytes
> */
> RB_TYPE_TIME_EXTENT,
oh, btw., that's a spelling mistake: s/extend/extend ?
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/