Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:33:19 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: ftrace behaviour (was: [PATCH] ftrace: introduce tracing_reset_online_cpus() helper) |
| |
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > "tracing_on" is not a function call, so nesting does not make sense. > It is a file in debugfs, and therefore an end user interface. I am only > talking about the debugfs files, not functions. Only developers use > functions and devels can be expected to find the implementation and > read the fine documentation. > > How about /debug/tracing/recording with values 0 and 1? > That would be a clear distinction to /debug/tracing/tracing_enabled. > I have also wondered about the "tracing_" prefix, the files are > already in the tracing/ directory. > > I am just trying to think what file names would make sense in > debugfs. I completely agree with you on function naming, but should > the file have the same name as the function? Sure, for developers > it would be easier to remember, but the name might not make any > sense unless you know the internal implementation. > > If something else than tracing starts to use the ring buffer > facility, we have to think about the names again. Until then, > just my 2c. :-)
Since this really only enables or disables the ring buffer, perhaps "ringbuffer_enabled" is the way to go?
-- Steve
| |