On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 08:02:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > 1. Don't back-patch wait events to v17+. Use the closest existing event. > > 2. Let wait_event_names.txt back-patches control the enum order. For > > example, > > a line could have an annotation that controls its position relative to > > the > > auto-sorted lines. For another example, the generator could stop > > sorting. > > 3. Accept the renumbering, because the consequence isn't that horrible.
> I see an option (4), similar to your (2) without the per-line > annotation: add a new magic keyword like the existing "Section" that > is used in the first lines of generate-wait_event_types.pl where we > generate tab-separated lines with the section name as prefix of each > line. So I can think of something like: > Section: ClassName - WaitEventFoo > FOO_1 "Waiting in foo1" > FOO_2 "Waiting in foo2" > Backpatch: > BAR_1 "Waiting in bar1" > BAR_2 "Waiting in bar2" > > Then force the ordering for the docs and keep the elements in the > backpatch section at the end of the enums in the order in the txt. > One thing that could make sense is to enforce that "Backpatch" is at > the end of a section, meaning that we would need a second keyword like > a "Section: EndBackpatch" or something like that. That's not strictly > necessary IMO as the format of the txt is easy to follow. Works for me, with or without the trailing keyword line.
