Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Add persistent events

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:22:59PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:02:01PM -0400
> 
> > Em Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:24:26PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> > > From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Will we continue using "util" here? What other name could we pick? Nah,
> > > > probably for the ones you moved we can continue using it, the symbols
> > > > part I plan to move to tools/lib/symbol/.
> > > Em Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:24:26PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> > > Yeah, names are kinda arbitrary. Keeping "util" meant as little changes as
> > > possible but it would make more sense to simply have all different library
> > > modules under "tools/lib/<module>.(c|h)" Will do so in the next version.
> > 
> > Ok
> > 
> > > > >  tools/perf/builtin-bench.c                         |    2 +-
> > > > >  tools/perf/builtin.h                               |    4 +-
> > > > 
> > > > > -#include "types.h"
> > > > > +#include <util/types.h>
> > > > 
> > > > I thought about suggesting using -I to reduce patch size, but then it is
> > > > using "" :-\
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I have the -I$(CURDIR)/lib for this in the top level Makefile so all
> > > library includes would be like:
> > > 
> > > #include <util.h>
> > > 
> > > however, this does not differentiate perflib (let's call it that for how
> > > :) from libc headers. Do we want a "perf" or "kernel" or "perflib" or
> > > whatever prefix here - it might make sense later when this thing grows
> > > to differentiate between the namespaces...?
> > 
> > Agreed, but the last name this thing will have will be 'perf'something :-)
> > 
> > One of the goals at least I have with pursuing this path is to separate
> > out everything that is not strictly 'perf' into things that can be reused
> > by other tools, like yours.
> 
> Ok, since I'm a big fan of unambiguous short names, let's call it "lk"
> for "linux kernel" and have this namespace for all generic headers. So
> when you include those, you have something like
> 
> #include <lk/util.h>
> 
> How does that sound?

As this code originated on the Linux kernel, should be OK and probably
unused.

Peter, ideas?

- Arnaldo
--
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/