Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:23:27 -0400 (EDT) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6] Unified trace buffer |
| |
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I started using the rb_ because I was constantly breaking the 80 character > > line limit with ring_buffer ;-) OK, for v8, I'll rename all static > > internal functions to rb_ and keep the global ones ring_buffer_ > > It would probably be better to use something else than 'rb_', because that > prefix is already used by the red-black trees, and exported as such (eg > "rb_next()" etc).
Good point.
> > But at least as long as it's static, it's probably not _too_ noticeable if > the rest of the names don't overlap. We _do_ include <linux/rbtree.h> > almost everywhere, since we use those things in the VM, in timers etc, so > it comes in through pretty much all headers.
Well, I just compiled it and it didn't have any name collisions, but that doesn't mean that this wont change in the future.
What would you suggest? buffer_ ? ringbuf_ ?
-- Steve
| |