Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753970Ab2JFS0V (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:26:21 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:6879 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751968Ab2JFS0U (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:26:20 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=dvhZ+ic4 c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=zYQHrSgTeTAA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=_67WK3i7ub8A:10 a=n6c3tSd2smW548EdFJ4A:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198 Message-ID: <1349547977.6755.108.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] trace,x86: add x86 irq vector tracepoints From: Steven Rostedt To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Seiji Aguchi , "Thomas Gleixner (tglx@linutronix.de)" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "'mingo@elte.hu' (mingo@elte.hu)" , "x86@kernel.org" , "dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net" , Satoru Moriya Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 14:26:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20121006173231.GA6110@liondog.tnic> References: <50612729.2080307@zytor.com> <50650A7E.90807@zytor.com> <1349446428.6755.56.camel@gandalf.local.home> <506F7849.2080805@zytor.com> <1349492261.6755.87.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20121006130532.GB11120@liondog.tnic> <1349535105.6755.104.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20121006173231.GA6110@liondog.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1160 Lines: 27 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/