Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

Andrew Morton
2009-01-06T23:39:03Z

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:24:39 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:13:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > (cc added)
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > softirq-introduce-statistics-for-softirq.patch
> > > > proc-export-statistics-for-softirq-to-proc.patch
> > > > proc-update-document-for-proc-softirqs-and-proc-stat.patch
> > >
> > > Why is this in procfs?
> >
> > softirq stuff in /proc seems appropriate? It's alongside
> > /proc/interrupts. We could put it in /trendy-fs-of-the-day, but what
> > would it gain us?
>
> debugfs seems to be the normal thing for these.

hm. I'm not a huge fan of debugfs (for other reasons, nicely explained
by Matt Mackall a while back).

But I don't think we actually *gain* anything by putting softirq stats
into debugfs, whereas it makes sense that it lives in /proc?

otoh, the internal implementation might be nicer if it uses debugfs
helper infrastructure. But the existing code is pretty
straightforward.