[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110124212838.GB13724@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:28:38 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Perf ABI versioning
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> 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-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