[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326717070.7642.144.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:31:10 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <saguchi@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: make signal tracepoints more useful
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 08:45 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Looks good to me at a first (quick) sight, except this bit
> which changes the ABI:
>
> > > - TP_printk("sig=%d errno=%d code=%d comm=%s pid=%d",
> > > + TP_printk("sig=%d errno=%d code=%d comm=%s pid=%d grp=%d res=%d",
>
> That's not how we change tracepoints generally - we add a new
> one and eventually phase out the old one. Which apps/tools rely
> on the old tracepoint? If it's exactly zero apps then we might
> be able to change it, but this needs to be investigated.
But this tracepoint wasn't changed, it was added on to. There's a
difference. Any tool that uses this (including something like powertop)
should be able to handle it. It should be no different than adding
to /proc/stat. We don't create a new /proc file when adding to it. The
original structure is still intact here.
We really need to get a parsing library out to the public. That would
avoid all these issues as the TRACE_EVENT() was originally designed to.
-- 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