* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This may be generally useful to help dealing with tracepoint ABI changes. > > But instead of a global tracing ABI number, I would rather suggest one number per > tracepoint subsystem (sched, power, etc...). Nooooooooooo ... !!! :-) Please lets stop this madness before it gets too serious: we dont do ABI version numbering in Linux, full stop. We use 'natural' ABIs where the lack of an ABI component triggers some sort of clean, finegrained error. Like a -EINVAL on a not-yet-implemented ABI component, a non-existent file entry, or -ENOSYS on a non-existent syscall. Such a design is arbitrarily backportable or forward portable, it's extensible and it is actually maintainable. In the ABI version numbering direction lies Windows madness ... Thanks, Ingo -- 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
|