Re: [PATCH v2] trace: Add x86 irq vector entry/exit tracepoints

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 07/06/2011 05:25 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> I'm suggesting two things:
> 
> 1) If every arch implement a tracepoint for a generic event, then move the tracepoint
> to the generic code. I believe that part is not very controversial.
> 

Agreed -- as long as it doesn't mean breaking the flow for specific arches.

> 2) If every arch implement a common event that is not implemented in core code (I believe
> it was the case for reschedule_interrupt few times ago but changed lately) then try
> to have a common tracepoint for every archs if possible. So that we don't have
> thousand names for the same event, or different parameters name when those parameters and the
> event semantic are exactly the same amongst every architecture.

Agreed as well.

> Trace events are irresponsible anyway because they involve that "ABI not really stable but tools
> rely on it so...well...)". I'm not sure the above points make the situation worse though. Probably
> the cases that fit in 2) need to be carefully checked to ensure they really fit in 2).

Yes, it was much more of a generic concern.  However, it is very
important that people have a correct idea about what the stability of
something like tracepoint is -- or we'll end up in a situation where we
can never change the kernel because anything is suddenly "user space
visible."

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