linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] [PATCH 1/5] events: Add EVENT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1290007009.2109.926.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:16:49 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] [PATCH 1/5] events: Add EVENT_FS the event
 filesystem

On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:03 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I think Arjan's complaints at the KS stemmed from prior sporadic declarations on 
> lkml that there is no tracepoint ABI _at all_, and that powertop/latencytop could 
> break anytime. 

And it will, afaik Arjan refused to even parse the format file which is
part of the tracepoint abi and I'll be changing those for the scheduler.

I really object to not being able to make sane changes just because some
tool is too lazy to even implement the full ABI that was exposed.


> I think Arjan's complaints at the KS stemmed from prior sporadic declarations on 
> lkml that there is no tracepoint ABI _at all_, and that powertop/latencytop could 
> break anytime. 

I fully intent to break powertop/latencytop if they refuse to use the
format file, deal with it.

Also, in the unlikely event we need to re-order the task->state bits
I'll do so without a moments hesitation, regardless of who consumes them
through the scheduler tracepoints, that's simply not stuff that should
be tied down.

The same for anything that tries to interpret task->prio through the
tracepoints.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/