Re: [PATCH 2/2] ftrace: document basic ftracer/ftracer graph needs

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 13:04, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> While implementing ftracer and ftracer graph support, I found the exact
> >> arch implementation details to be a bit lacking (and my x86 foo ain't
> >> great). ÂSo after pounding out support for the Blackfin arch, document
> >> the requirements.
> >
> > This does not belong in the Kconfig. That's the last place a developer
> > will look for implementing something.
> 
> yes and no -- i was following the existing documenting practice of
> ftrace where details were added to the Kconfig.  guess i should fix
> that in the process.

Documenting what should be selected and why is one thing, but to document 
implementation is another. I'm not against documentation in Kconfig, but 
that should explain more about why things are selected. But not 
implementation details.


> 
> there should be at least tips in each HAVE_XXX as to where to look for
> implementation details.

That can be opening a can of worms.

Really, the focus of the documentation in Kconfig is about why things must 
be selected, not how to implement the code to add that selection.

If there's a HAVE_XXX in Kconfig that I want to see how to implement it, I 
go off and do 'grep -r XXX Documentation'.

-- Steve