[ltt-dev] [RFC] UST Tracepoint API Changes

[Matthew Khouzam]

On 11-11-02 10:00 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following discussions at LinuxCon, there are two changes I would like to
> propose for the TRACEPOINT_EVENT API. Comments are welcome:
>
> 1) Change the first argument of TRACEPOINT_EVENT, defined as:
>
>   < [com_company_]project_[component_]event >
>
>   for two arguments, separated by a comma:
>
>   < [com_company_]project[_component] >, < event >
>
> This would be more in line with the Dtrace "provider, event" scheme,
> which is already very much in use for instrumentation. This would allow
> application developers to make the mapping to dtrace instrumentation
> they might already have more easiy.
Basically to illustrate that:
TRACEPOINT_EVENT( com_efficios_babeltrace_reader_openfile, ... )
becomes
TRACEPOINT_EVENT( com_efficios_babeltrace_reader, openfile, ... )
I like it, it's not overly complex and forces people to better think out
their tracepoint names.
>
> 2) Not sure about the following one: TRACEPOINT_EVENT is quite long to
> type in, and so it "tracepoint()", and the upcoming
> "tracepoint_printf()". I'm thinking about going for shorter names, but I
> also want to try not to get conflicts with existing code out there.
> Ideas on a shorter yet explanatory name would be very welcome.
>
> tp_* seems a little bit short and prone to conflicts.
sounds like toilet paper, and it is used a lot with other projects.
> tracep_ sounds too much like ptrace.
also, the p is ambiguous, why not just trace_ at that point?
> tracept_ might be good enough. It's only downside might be to sound like
> "trace-pity" when we say it out loud. ;-)
pt is the unsaid shorthand for point. it would be easily understood by
most IMO. but at this point you are three letters away from tracepoint_
I would suggest going full length and letting those who don't like
typing either the option to use a code completing IDE like eclipse-cdt,
or making macros that make sense to them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>