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 yearfor some time software needs to support both, especially if popular distros stick to an older kernel like *cough* RHEL6
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-trace-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|