[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE4F4FB.7050104@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:42:19 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 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 11/17/2010 08:12 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'd really like to hear Avi's thoughts on this.
Steven's scheme is fine with me. (kvm tracepoints are more or less
stable, but all tools so far read the tracepoint definitions
dynamically, and can cope with tracepoints being added/changed/removed).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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