On 10/19/2010 4:52 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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? more like a year for some time software needs to support both, especially if popular distros stick to an older kernel like *cough* RHEL6 _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
