Re: [PATCH v2] watchdog: Add tracing events for the most usual watchdog events

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 12:39:24 -0700
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:

> > > Nit, but I would probably put the above TRACE_EVENT() below the two
> > > DEFINE_EVENT()s below. That way we have all the DEFINE_EVENT()s for a
> > > specific DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() together. Otherwise people may get confused.  
> > 
> > I thought about that, too. The argument for the order I chose is that
> > having start at the start and stop at the end is also intuitive.
> > 
> > But I don't care much and would let the watchdog guys decide what they
> > prefer.
> > 
> > @Wim+Guenter: Feel free to reorder at application time or ask for a v3
> > if this v2 doesn't fit your preference.  
> 
> For my part I would prefer a version with Steven's Reviewed-by: tag,
> whatever it is.

I much rather have the DEFINE_EVENTS followed by the DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()
as that's what most people look for.

For start and stop being together, I believe that will not trip many people
up, where as the DEFINE_EVENTS() scattering will.

I'm OK if maintainers of the code are fine with the scattering, but it will
break precedence. 

-- Steve