Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200205154629.GA1257054@kroah.com> <20200205160250.GG142103@google.com>
 <CAOesGMj7Z9JoEYrnQaiHrHsjG7cv9ebEbyZM-QFWN2HJDa=UGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200205171353.GI142103@google.com> <20200205213354.GB1465126@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200205213354.GB1465126@kroah.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 13:35:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YSU_Zm24R2TYFQd42CfXyotowv42BbvbvKfSFbZGUqOHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert kheaders feature
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:33 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
[snip]
> > > like the BTF approach is significantly better and said users are
> > > hopefully moving forward to it quickly, and if they can't move
> > > forward, then they're likely also not going to move forward to newer
> > > kernels either?
> >
> > I think BCC runs on a lot of upstream machines. I think the migration
> > strategy is a matter of opinion, one way is to take it out and cause some
> > pain in the hope that users/tools will migrate soon (while probably carrying
> > the reverted patches out of tree). Another is to migrate the tools first and
> > then take it out (which has its own disadvantages such as introducing even
> > more users of it while it is still upstream).
>
> Do we "know" what tools today require this, and what needs to be done to
> "fix" them?  If we don't know that, then there's no way to drop this,
> pretty much ever :(

Is there a real reason to drop it or a problem dropping this solves though?

thanks,

  - Joel