[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJzgTRWUAaH+L6qwJvHk0vsLPX3eWdZNUr5X77TuEgvPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 08:25:27 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jirka Hladký <jhladky@...hat.com>,
Jiří Vozár <jvozar@...hat.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/debug: add sched_update_nr_running tracepoint
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:10 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> I wonder if this distinction of "tracepoint" being non-ABI can be documented
> somewhere. I would be happy to do that if there is a place for the same. I
> really want some general "policy" in the kernel on where we draw a line in
> the sand with respect to tracepoints and ABI :).
It's been discussed millions times. tracepoints are not abi.
Example: android folks started abusing tracepoints inside bpf core
and we _deleted_ them.
Same thing can be done with _any_ tracepoint.
Do not abuse them and stop the fud about abi.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists