Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:27:01 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf: Move fs.* to generic lib/lk/ |
| |
* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org> wrote:
> Em Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:28:04PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:05:24PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > "To offers various helper methods to interface with the Linux kernel: > > > debugfs, procfs, sysfs handling routines with no policy, just pure, > > > obvious helpers to use kernel functionality." > > > Exactly. > > > > Naming is a bit hard, to keep it small, descriptive, as API can lead > > > people to think about other kinds of kernel APIs (syscalls?), "fskapi" > > > to mean "fs based kernel API" would perhaps be more descriptive? A > > > longer (more descriptive) possibility would be "linux-fskapi". > > > Yeah, you can't have fskapi because we'll add other stuff to it > > (see the diffstat I sent you last week) so not filesystem stuff > > only. So I think "kapi" is as generic and as fitting as it gets. > > We can use the "kernel-api" variant but I think the "k" is enough. > > I think is that it is too generic, the other stuff you mention is > not really "kapi" at all. > > The rest, things like util.c, usage.c, rbtree.c, hash, strlist, etc > are all, well, utilities that we got from the kernel, from git, or > that were created for perf, could get a tools/lib/util/ generic name > and be outside the one with the description agreed above. > > But they are not "helper methods to interface with the Linux kernel" > at all.
I don't think those other bits should go into this library. rbtree should go into lib/rbtree/, command-line bits into lib/cmdline/, build system helpers into lib/build/, etc.
Merging unrelated things into a single library is a user-space disease we need not repeat.
I'd also not expose any of this externally but straight link it into the individual utilities - that way it does not matter that it's a nice, topical, fine-grained set of functionality.
I don't think we are ready for (nor do we want the overhead of) maintaining a library ABI at this stage.
Once things slow down and it's all so robust that we've had at most a handful of commits in tools/lib/ in a full year we can think about exporting it, maybe ...
Thanks,
Ingo
| |