On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And that's exactly why we need a method of marking tracepoints as
> stable. How else are we going to know whether a specific tracepoint
> is stable if the kernel code doesn't document that it's stable?
You are living in some unrealistic dream-world where you think you can
get the right tracepoint on the first try.
So there is no way in hell I would ever mark any tracepoint "stable"
until it has had a fair amount of use, and there are useful tools that
actually make use of it, and it has shown itself to be the right
trace-point.
And once that actually happens, what's the advantage of marking it
stable? None. It's a catch-22. Before it has uses and has been tested
and found to be good, it's not stable. And after, it's pointless.
So at no point does such a "stable" tracepoint marking make sense. At
most, you end up adding a comment saying "this tracepoint is used by
tools such-and-such".
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>