On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 06:11:44PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:

On 09/29/2016 05:48 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:31:09PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:

quoted

On 09/29/2016 05:13 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:32:55PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:

quoted

+int ptdump_register(struct ptdump_info *info, const char *name)
+{
+	ptdump_initialize(info);
+	return ptdump_debugfs_create(info, name);
}

quoted

I meant moving ptdump_register into ptdump_debugfs.c, perhaps renamed to make it
clear it's debugfs-specific.

We could instead update existing users to call ptdump_debugfs_create()
directly, and have that call ptdump_initialize(), which could itself become a
staic inline in a header.

Ah okay, I see what you are suggesting. ptdump_initialize should still
happen regardless of debugfs status though so I guess ptdump_debugfs_create
would just get turned into just ptdump_initialize
which seems a little unclear. I'll come up with some other shed
colors^W^Wfunction names.

Cheers!

FWIW, given ptsump_initialize() is only going to be called with the ptdump core
and debugfs code, I'm not all that concerned by what it's called. A few leading
underscores is about the only thing that comes to mind, but even as-is I think
it should be fine.

Thanks,
Mark.