On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:59:47PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 08:27 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > Bart, Steve > > > > You attended the MS track, and for the rest of us, the quote below > > sounds a little bit cryptic. Does the quote below mean that Chuck's > > proposal is no-go? > > > > From LWN.net "Another attempt to address the tracepoint ABI problem" [1] > > > > "The solution that was arrived at for now, as related by Torvalds, > > is to hold off on adding explicit tracepoints to the kernel. Instead, > > support will be added to make it easy for an application to attach a > > BPF script to any function in the kernel, with access to that function's > > arguments." > > > > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/737530/ > > What I remember is that Linus does not require us to avoid breaking user > space applications that use tracepoints. Powertop however is an exception > to this rule. Although it uses tracepoints, we must not break it. I also > remember that Linus noticed that the purpose of many tracepoints is to > allow users to trace a function and its arguments. Linus wants a better > approach for tracing kernel functions than adding an explicit tracepoint > to each kernel function. Maybe I wasn't listening carefully enough but I > haven't heard Linus saying that we would not be allowed to add new > tracepoints. Like Steven, I wasn't in MS either and the sentence "is to hold off on adding explicit tracepoints to the kernel" made me worry. Thanks. > > Bart.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
