From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753212Ab1AEXkb (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:40:31 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:32975 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753077Ab1AEXk3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:40:29 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ITrq9eaKvHCeAJBRnKRbVxibuVKCjMpxnsZkCyCosltlWZsMsvNbd7a95Rt7b8hRnw mWEL4IY6SvF46POqcbiabQ7EMYIraYAtCzOEnkpZz+VKf9dHTMnVqmlOP4GIqi+ea1XK vUoFSejgQ6yp8/RDzSfe2GBg2x+offCYB+TXA= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 00:40:25 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: LKML , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC patch 3/5] ftrace trace event add missing semicolumn Message-ID: <20110105234021.GC1692@nowhere> References: <20110104231629.996422888@efficios.com> <20110104232419.441463699@efficios.com> <20110105000005.GE2911@nowhere> <20110105001837.GA9737@Krystal> <20110105020759.GG2911@nowhere> <20110105023541.GA12950@Krystal> <20110105025848.GH2911@nowhere> <20110105135242.GC31831@Krystal> <20110105150245.GA1692@nowhere> <20110105195612.GA9709@Krystal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110105195612.GA9709@Krystal> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 02:56:12PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@gmail.com) wrote: > [...] > > Looks good! > > > > I might be missing corner things but it seems this would reduce the code > > footprint (one function less) and turn more rw into ro datas. > > > > So it seems to be a very valuable reason to change the semicolon requirement > > all over the place. > > > > If you come up with this feature along the massive semicolon requirement > > change, we will probably happily apply the whole. > > > > But coming with only the semicolon change is more like an empty shell. > > My proposal here is to incrementally improve the tracing code, starting by > cleaning up what is already there. I cannot do this if you keep asking me for > larger changes to both Ftrace and Perf before any of the prerequisite cleanups > can make their way in. > > In this thread, I demonstrated that the TRACE_EVENT cleanup I proposed opens a > lot of code/data size reduction cleanups for Ftrace and Perf. But let's get the > cleanup in there first (it does not break the current way Ftrace and Perf are > working), and once all the code-base has moved to the semicolumn-less semantic, > then we can start improving Ftrace and Perf. Don't be suprised of my reaction. The way the things were presented was: 1) A patch with an meaningless changelog, absolutely no idea why that new semicolon is useful for. 2) Me asking you why 3) You explaining me it's actually part of a much bigger cleanup for a goal almost completely useless 4) Me has a hard time considering the big cleanup useful as is. Expressing my worries. 5) You detailing much more the semicolon symptoms, and finally dropping an evasive reason to do this cleanup, collapsed in the obsure notion of "arrays of event".. 6) Me still puzzled by the big cleanup just for the sake of unnoticeable files.i pollution cleanup. But I try to give some chance by asking to expand the "arrays of event" idea. 7) You explaining me something that looks like a meaningful, useful reason for the big cleanup, but as a possibility. You propose me that I reuse the Lttng code that you pick as an example, not suggesting you're planing to handle that part. 8) Me: ok for the big cleanup then, if you plan to also handle the useful change you detailed, because otherwise it's meaningless. See? That meaningful reason came so late in the discussion, and was proposed so much under the angle of the possibility rather than something you plan that I just thought you would just drop that empty shell and run away. Hence my worries. But if you plan to do the thing incrementally, this is also perfectly ok. And you know what, may be you won't eventually have the time to complete with the useful part. And may be someone else will handle that part. Whatever, it's ok. We don't always finish everything. But at least fill your changelogs with the useful longterm goal so that we know we are going somewhere with this. > As we say in French, "il ne faut pas mettre la charrue devant les boeufs" > (roughly: don't put the cart before the horse) As we say in French, "oui mais il a fallu te tirer les vers du nez" (roughly: right, but still I had to worm it out of you)