[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290016354.30543.71.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:52:34 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] [PATCH 1/5] events: Add EVENT_FS the event
filesystem
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:46 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> [...]
> > Are these events now going to be labeled as stable? Is every tracepoint
> > we have, much have the same data? Linus specifically said at Kernel
> > Summit that he wants absolutely NO modules to have a stable tracepoint.
>
> I'd like to bring up the point of KVM tracepoints here. KVM can be configured as
> a module, and may clearly contain tracepoints that we'd like to be stable.
>
> My thought is that what we really want to enforce is "no stable tracepoints in
> drivers" rather than in "modules", but I might be wrong.
>
> Thoughts ?
I still say no to stable tracepoints in modules. Once you open that
door, everyone will have it.
But, that doesn't mean that a raw traepoint can't be stable. If the
maintainer of that tracepoint states it is stable, then by all means,
let tools use it.
-- Steve
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists