* Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:03:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > Ted, I think you have some TRAVE_EVENT patches for ext4 pending, > > > but is it okay to queue up this removal in the tracing tree? That > > > way we can remove the markers leftovers there completely as soon > > > as the 2.6.31 merge window opens. > > > > i think these markers are still in active use, so i'd not remove > > them before Ted's TRACE_EVENT() changes are included. We can/should > > do that in a single topic - in a work flow that suits Ted best. > > My complaint with Cristoph's is that it will conflict with patches > I have pending which replaces the markers with tracepoints --- and > I *am* using the tracepoints actively. The only reason why these > patches aren't in -stable is they have a dependency one of > Rostedt's changes. (Not a syntactic dependency, but if we merge > in the wrong order, and the rcu_read_lock/unlock() calls aren't > around the TP_PRINTK callpoint, then in certain CONFIG_PREEMPT > configurations and if there is more than one active ext4 > filesystem while the ext4 or jbd2 tracepoints are active, there's > a potential race.) That's OK. > > We can do a -git based special-purpose topic branch in -tip, or > > we can do it in tip/tracing, or we can pull a (-git based) > > branch from Ted. Or we can delay it all to the v2.6.31 merge > > window. Ted's choice. > > My plan was to wait for the tracing patches to get pushed during > the 2.6.31 merge tree, at which point I would then push my changes > which replace the markers with TRACE_EVENT changes. So no matter > which way we do this, the ext4 markers will be gone by the end of > the 2.6.31 merge window. That's a perfectly fine approach. > Christoph, if you have some desire to completely remove the > CONFIG_MARKERS support code, and I'm holding up your ability to do > work, I can take the ext4 TRACE_EVENT patches, and queue them up > in tip/tracing. It's less work than if we take your markers > removal patches, since then I would have to resolve all of the > conflicts with my patches which replace all of the ext4 and jbd2 > markers with TRACE_EVENTS macros. > > My preference is for the former, mainly because my patches are > already set up for that, and I'm a lazy bastard; the latter > wouldn't be much work, though. I'm guessing your preference would > be for the latter? No, lets delay this to the v2.6.31 merge window. I'd like to remove markers - but not at the cost of making life harder for others and at the cost of creating inter-dependencies on such a level. I objected to markers back when they were merged in a rather haphazard way, but i'll object to any haphazard removal just as much ;-) The .31 merge window will open in about a month. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
