* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 13:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Most definitely. It's no accident that it took such a long time for this issue > > > > to be raised in the first place. It's a rare occurance - > > > > > > Do you agree that this occurance happened now and these events should get cleaned > > > up before ARM and other archs make use of the broken interface? > > > > > > If not, discussing this further, is a big waste of time... and Jean would have to > > > try to adapt his ARM code on the broken ABI... > > > > The discussion seems to have died down somewhat. Please re-send to lkml the latest > > patches you have to remind everyone of the latest state of things - the merge window > > is getting near. > > > > My only compatibility/ABI point is basically that it shouldnt break _existing_ > > tracepoints (and users thereof). If your latest bits meet that then it ought to be a > > good first step. You are free to (and encouraged to) introduce more complete sets of > > events. > > Can we deprecate and eventually remove the old ones, or will we be forever obliged > to carry the old ones too? We most definitely want to deprecate and remove the old ones - but we want to give instrumentation software some migration time for that. Jean, Arjan, what would be a feasible and practical deprecation period for that? One kernel cycle? Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
