Re: [PATCH 04/10] perf machine: Introduce synthesize_threads method out of open coded equivalent

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:

> Em Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:50:45PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > * David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > On 11/11/13, 1:22 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > >+	if (perf_target__has_task(target))
> > > >+		return perf_event__synthesize_thread_map(tool, threads, process, machine, data_mmap);
> > > >+	else if (perf_target__has_cpu(target))
> > > >+		return perf_event__synthesize_threads(tool, process, machine, data_mmap);
> 
> > > Getting kind of long on the line lengths...
> 
> > Maybe we could start losing most of the perf_ prefixes - it's all about 
> > perf here, so it does not really add much information, does it?
> 
> In some cases that is ok, that is why I didn't call it 'perf_machine', 
> just 'machine', in others, like 'perf_event', I thought 'event' would be 
> too general when somebody tries to use this code together with other 
> libraries.

I think 'event' as a variable name is generally unused by libraries, 
exactly because so much random code uses it.

The only unfortunate C library land grabs I've run into are 'time' [by 
glibc] and 'y0' [by libm].

What I was suggesting here was more like an event__*() namespace - there 
shouldn't be any collision with public functions from libraries, public 
functions are generally either well established, or prefixed with a 
library name.

These are perf-internal function names, so using event__*() should be fine 
- assuming there are no counter arguments.

Thanks,

	Ingo