Re: move gfs2 tracepoints to inclue/trace/events dir

Steven Whitehouse
2009-10-12T10:15:04Z

Hi,

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 12:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 19:45 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:01:16PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to move the gfs2 tracepoints to the the common
> > > > include/trace/events directory along with all of the other trace events.
> > > > It makes understanding what tracepoints are available easier, and I see
> > > > no reason why gfs2 should be different. For example, 'ext4.h' is already
> > > > in the include/trace/events directory.
> > >
> > > Folks, no. Drivers and filesystems should be as self-contained as
> > > possible. include/trace/ is an extremly bad idea for everything that's
> > > not actually global kernel functionality. There's a reason all other
> > > fs headers have moved out of include/linux, too.
> > >
> >
> > That true, although there is an argument about how much such a header
> > belongs to tracing and how much it belongs to the subsystem I think.
>
> yeah. I have no objection to adding it to include/trace/. Tracepoints
> are a fundamentally global business.
>
> Subsystems can opt to hide their tracepoints locally, but it's better to
> have a global view about what's out there, so that it can be extended
> coherently, etc.
>
> Would you like to carry the patch or should we apply it to the tracing
> tree?
>
> Ingo

It is already in my tree, but lets wait and see what Christoph says, as
maybe we want to organise things differently. Personally I don't really
mind where we put it, so long as it makes sense and I know where it
is :-)

Steve.