On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 10:06 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > In this case we're talking about basically a suprious rename of > something that isn't really an improvement > (because it makes it harder to subscribe to only one type of event)... > that's not a good thing. People have been talking about more/more comprehensive power tracepoints for a while, and I think that's a valid goal, if its really a rename I'm sure you can work it out. That said, I really didn't read this discussion much, but your stance seems to be that any tracepoint you use must stay valid, and I object to that. What will do you do when we include a new scheduling policy and all the scheduler tracepoints need to change? (yes that's really going to happen) I'm not going to carry double tracepoints, and I'm not going to not merge that policy. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
