[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160613162914.GK25086@rric.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:29:14 +0200
From: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andreas Krebbel <krebbel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andreas Arnez <arnez@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/oprofile: Remove deprecated create_workqueue
Heiko,
On 09.06.16 11:00:56, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> However I'm wondering if we shouldn't simply remove at least the s390
> specific hwswampler code from the oprofile module. This would still leave
> the common code timer based sampling mode for oprofile working on s390.
>
> It looks like the oprofile user space utility nowadays (since 2012) uses
> the kernel perf interface instead of the oprofile interface anyway, if
> present. So the oprofile module itself doesn't seem to have too many users
> left.
>
> Any opinions?
yes, the kernel driver is not necessary for oprofile userland for a
while now. There is no ongoing development any longer, most patches
are due to changes in the kernel apis.
So if there is code that needs a larger rework due to other kernel
changes and there is no user anymore, I am fine with removing the code
instead of reworking it. I still would just keep existing code as long
as we can keep it unchanged (some like the lightwight of oprofile,
esp. in the embedded space). If there is a user of the code, a
Tested-by would be good for new code changes.
If there are users of the hwswampler, speak up now. Else, let's just
remove it.
-Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists