Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] time to reconsider tracepoints in the vfs?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>   - relative stability of tracepoints in terms of naming, semantics,
> arguments. While not stable APIs, tracepoints are "more stable" in
> practice due to more deliberate and strategic placement (usually), so
> they tend to get renamed or changed much less frequently.

I will support tracepoints in the VFS. It would be very useful to have
them.

But we will clearly document that we retain the right to change them at
any time. Tracepoints will not become a burden for refactorings or
rewrites that tend to happen not that infrequently.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux