From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755562Ab3KVM1J (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:27:09 -0500 Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:57414 "EHLO mail-bk0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752069Ab3KVM1G (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:27:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:27:01 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Borislav Petkov , LKML , Borislav Petkov , Jiri Olsa , Peter Zijlstra , Robert Richter Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Move fs.* to generic lib/lk/ Message-ID: <20131122122701.GA1480@gmail.com> References: <1384984585-24300-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> <20131121073410.GA16971@gmail.com> <20131121100722.GA25459@pd.tnic> <20131121111744.GA27513@gmail.com> <20131121113014.GA26009@pd.tnic> <20131121114224.GA27704@gmail.com> <20131121120605.GC26009@pd.tnic> <20131121150524.GA24806@ghostprotocols.net> <20131121152804.GI26009@pd.tnic> <20131121173714.GD24806@ghostprotocols.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131121173714.GD24806@ghostprotocols.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:28:04PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:05:24PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > "To offers various helper methods to interface with the Linux kernel: > > > debugfs, procfs, sysfs handling routines with no policy, just pure, > > > obvious helpers to use kernel functionality." > > > Exactly. > > > > Naming is a bit hard, to keep it small, descriptive, as API can lead > > > people to think about other kinds of kernel APIs (syscalls?), "fskapi" > > > to mean "fs based kernel API" would perhaps be more descriptive? A > > > longer (more descriptive) possibility would be "linux-fskapi". > > > Yeah, you can't have fskapi because we'll add other stuff to it > > (see the diffstat I sent you last week) so not filesystem stuff > > only. So I think "kapi" is as generic and as fitting as it gets. > > We can use the "kernel-api" variant but I think the "k" is enough. > > I think is that it is too generic, the other stuff you mention is > not really "kapi" at all. > > The rest, things like util.c, usage.c, rbtree.c, hash, strlist, etc > are all, well, utilities that we got from the kernel, from git, or > that were created for perf, could get a tools/lib/util/ generic name > and be outside the one with the description agreed above. > > But they are not "helper methods to interface with the Linux kernel" > at all. I don't think those other bits should go into this library. rbtree should go into lib/rbtree/, command-line bits into lib/cmdline/, build system helpers into lib/build/, etc. Merging unrelated things into a single library is a user-space disease we need not repeat. I'd also not expose any of this externally but straight link it into the individual utilities - that way it does not matter that it's a nice, topical, fine-grained set of functionality. I don't think we are ready for (nor do we want the overhead of) maintaining a library ABI at this stage. Once things slow down and it's all so robust that we've had at most a handful of commits in tools/lib/ in a full year we can think about exporting it, maybe ... Thanks, Ingo