Re: [PATCH v2] watchdog: Add tracing events for the most usual watchdog events

[Guenter Roeck]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 05:11:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:39:24 -0700
> Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > Nit, but I would probably put the above TRACE_EVENT() below the two
> > > > DEFINE_EVENT()s below. That way we have all the DEFINE_EVENT()s for a
> > > > specific DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() together. Otherwise people may get confused.  
> > > 
> > > I thought about that, too. The argument for the order I chose is that
> > > having start at the start and stop at the end is also intuitive.
> > > 
> > > But I don't care much and would let the watchdog guys decide what they
> > > prefer.
> > > 
> > > @Wim+Guenter: Feel free to reorder at application time or ask for a v3
> > > if this v2 doesn't fit your preference.  
> > 
> > For my part I would prefer a version with Steven's Reviewed-by: tag,
> > whatever it is.
> 
> I much rather have the DEFINE_EVENTS followed by the DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()
> as that's what most people look for.
> 
> For start and stop being together, I believe that will not trip many people
> up, where as the DEFINE_EVENTS() scattering will.
> 

I agree. Uwe, please send v3 with those changes.

Thanks,
Guenter