From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:48:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dump: Make ptdump debugfs a separate option In-Reply-To: References: <20160929213257.30505-1-labbott@redhat.com> <20160929213257.30505-2-labbott@redhat.com> <20160930001339.GA4369@remoulade> Message-ID: <20160930004852.GC4369@remoulade> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:31:09PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 09/29/2016 05:13 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:32:55PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > >>+int ptdump_register(struct ptdump_info *info, const char *name) > >>+{ > >>+ ptdump_initialize(info); > >>+ return ptdump_debugfs_create(info, name); > >> } > > > >It feels like a layering violation to have the core ptdump code call the > >debugfs ptdump code. Is there some reason this has to live here? > > Which 'this' are you referring to here? Are you suggesting moving > the ptdump_register elsewhere or moving the debugfs create elsewhere? Sorry, I should have worded that better. I meant moving ptdump_register into ptdump_debugfs.c, perhaps renamed to make it clear it's debugfs-specific. We could instead update existing users to call ptdump_debugfs_create() directly, and have that call ptdump_initialize(), which could itself become a staic inline in a header. Thanks, Mark.