[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1295901543.28776.475.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:39:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>, tardyp@...il.com,
jean.pihet@...oldbits.com, acme@...stprotocols.net,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
linux-trace-users@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Perf ABI versioning
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 21:34 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> But instead of a global tracing ABI number, I would rather suggest
> one number per tracepoint subsystem (sched, power, etc...).
>
> Ideally it would be per event, but sometimes those events tend to be
> renamed or a whole tracepoint subsystem refactored (see workqueue
> lately). Hence it might be better per subsystem.
What's wrong with what we have? the /format file is pretty unique to
function as a version number of you use a hash over it.
--
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