Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 10/29/2018 04:00 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> I am wondering if /proc/stat_noirqs will be a more descriptive name of
>> the intent of this new procfs file or we should just go with the more
>> generic stat2 name.
>
> The reason why I went with '2' instead of a more rescriptive name
> was that I think of the call as a drop-in replacement/extention to
> stat. Therefore the same fields are maintained, otherwise with
> stat_noirqs
> I feel like instead of zeroing out, they should just be removed.
>
> But otoh, I have no strong objection in renaming either.
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr

I am just questioning the rationale for the stat2 name. I am not
advocating to use stat_noirqs neither.

BTW, since you are making stat2 compatible with stat, will that be
easier from the user API perspective if we use a sysctl parameter to
turn on and off IRQs reporting for /proc/stat, for example?

I know that there are pros and cons for each approach, I just want to
consider all the available options and choose the best one.

Cheers,
Longman