Re: ftrace behaviour (was: [PATCH] ftrace: introduce tracing_reset_online_cpus() helper)

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> 
> "tracing_on" is not a function call, so nesting does not make sense.
> It is a file in debugfs, and therefore an end user interface. I am only
> talking about the debugfs files, not functions. Only developers use
> functions and devels can be expected to find the implementation and
> read the fine documentation.
> 
> How about /debug/tracing/recording with values 0 and 1?
> That would be a clear distinction to /debug/tracing/tracing_enabled.
> I have also wondered about the "tracing_" prefix, the files are
> already in the tracing/ directory.
> 
> I am just trying to think what file names would make sense in
> debugfs. I completely agree with you on function naming, but should
> the file have the same name as the function? Sure, for developers
> it would be easier to remember, but the name might not make any
> sense unless you know the internal implementation.
> 
> If something else than tracing starts to use the ring buffer
> facility, we have to think about the names again. Until then,
> just my 2c. :-)

Since this really only enables or disables the ring buffer, perhaps 
"ringbuffer_enabled" is the way to go?

-- Steve