Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:42:50 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] tracepoint: Do not waste memory on mods with no
 tracepoints
Message-ID: <20140226204250.36de98b1@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <87lhwx2y8k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <20140226110313.4d92fb83@gandalf.local.home>
	<87lhwx2y8k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:00:35 +1030
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
> > No reason to allocate tp_module structures for modules that have no
> > tracepoints. This just wastes memory.
> >
> > Fixes: b75ef8b44b1c "Tracepoint: Dissociate from module mutex"
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.2+
> 
> Really?  CC:stable?  To save an insignificant amount of memory?

I agree that this rational alone is not sufficient for stable. But this
is required for another patch that warns when tracepoints are not
loaded by a module due to taints. We don't want to warn on all modules.


> 
> The definition of stable seems to be shifting away from "fixes for
> problems with significant effects".  I obviously missed the memo.

Not telling users that tracepoints were not activated, but acting in
every other way like they are is to me a "significant effect". This
just happened to be something that fixing this depended on.

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/