From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750872AbWFQGv3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:51:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751086AbWFQGv3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:51:29 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:4292 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750872AbWFQGv2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:51:28 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: Martin Peschke Subject: Re: statistics infrastructure (in -mm tree) review Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:51:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: Greg KH , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net References: <20060613232131.GA30196@kroah.com> <44909292.2080005@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <44909292.2080005@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606170851.22197.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > b) Export statistic_add_counter(), statistic_add_histogram() and the like > as part of the programming API (maybe in addition to the flexible > statistic_add()) for those exploiters that definitively can't effort > branching into a function. > > Loss in functionality (exploiting kernel code dictates how users see > the data), a bit faster than option a). (b) if anything. But do we really need all these weird options anyways? For me it seems you're far overdesigning. > What do you think? Did I miss an option? I think your whole approach is about 10x too complicated. The normal approach in Linux is to start simple and add complexity later as needed. You seem to try to do it the other way around. -Andi