On 03/27/2018 02:07 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:02:20 -0700 > Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> for_each_kernel_tracepoint() is used by out-of-tree lttng module >> and therefore cannot be changed. > > This is false and misleading. NACK. Steven, while I really don't care about this particular function, you wrote a few emails ago, quote: Look, the tracepoint code was written by Mathieu for LTTng, and perf and ftrace were able to benefit because of it, as well as your bpf code. For this, we agreed to keep this function around for his use, as its the only thing he requires. Everyone has been fine with that. [...] Having that function for LTTng does not hurt us. And I will NACK removing it. So later saying that "this is false and misleading" is kind of misleading by itself. ;-) Anyway, it would probably make sense to add a comment to for_each_kernel_tracepoint() that this is used by LTTng so that people don't accidentally remove it due to missing in-tree user. I would think some sort of clarification/background in a comment or such would have avoided the whole confusion and resulting discussion around this in the first place. Btw, in networking land, as soon as there is no in-tree user for a particular kernel function, it will get ripped out, no matter what. Given this is also the typical convention in the kernel, it may have caused some confusion with above preference. Anyway, given v6 is out now, I've tossed the old series from bpf-next tree. So I hope we can all move on with some more constructive discussion. :-) Thanks everyone, Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
