[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1349547977.6755.108.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 14:26:17 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
"Thomas Gleixner (tglx@...utronix.de)" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'mingo@...e.hu' (mingo@...e.hu)" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] trace,x86: add x86 irq vector tracepoints
On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 19:32 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > 2) Are the tracepoints done in a way that it's not going to cause "ABI"
> > issues. If not then we need to redesign the tracepoints.
>
> Btw, this we should be asking ourselves about *all* TPs, especially if
> they're in generic code.
I agree, and I'm starting to think I shouldn't have given free reign
over the TPs to system maintainers. That is, I should have pushed harder
to understand all tracepoints added to code to make sure the maintainer
knows that it can become an ABI.
Some maintainers don't worry about it. But I can see it coming back to
haunt them. In the end, it will hurt the maintainer of the code, which
is why I gave the ownership of tracepoints to locations where they are
at (instead of a "joint" ownership). But I probably should have been a
TP cop for a while to allow them to understand the consequences first.
-- 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