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

[Matthew Khouzam]

trace_printf sounds great, people already think printf when they have to
debug so this is a natural fit.

On 11-11-05 08:16 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Matthew Khouzam (matthew.khouzam at ericsson.com) wrote:
>> On 11-11-02 10:00 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> [...]
>>> 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.
> agreed.
>
>>> tracep_ sounds too much like ptrace.
>> also, the p is ambiguous, why not just trace_ at that point?
> yep.
>
>>> 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.
> I'm thinking that we could keep:
>
>   TRACEPOINT_EVENT()/tracepoint() for the production-style
> instrumentation. It is meant to be well-thought anyway, so it does not
> hurt if it takes a bit more time to type in.
>
> For debug-style instrumentation, trace_printf() looks really
> interesting, and I don't find matches with google (the first matches are
> trace_printk(), in the kernel).
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Mathieu
>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ltt-dev mailing list
>> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
>> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
>>