Re: PATCH [0/4] perf: clean-up of power events API

[Arjan van de Ven]

 On 10/19/2010 4:52 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra<peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 13:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Thomas Renninger<trenn@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Most definitely. It's no accident that it took such a long time for this issue
> > > > > to be raised in the first place. It's a rare occurance -
> > > > Do you agree that this occurance happened now and these events should get cleaned
> > > > up before ARM and other archs make use of the broken interface?
> > > >
> > > > If not, discussing this further, is a big waste of time... and Jean would have to
> > > > try to adapt his ARM code on the broken ABI...
> > > The discussion seems to have died down somewhat. Please re-send to lkml the latest
> > > patches you have to remind everyone of the latest state of things - the merge window
> > > is getting near.
> > >
> > > My only compatibility/ABI point is basically that it shouldnt break _existing_
> > > tracepoints (and users thereof). If your latest bits meet that then it ought to be a
> > > good first step. You are free to (and encouraged to) introduce more complete sets of
> > > events.
> > Can we deprecate and eventually remove the old ones, or will we be forever obliged
> > to carry the old ones too?
> We most definitely want to deprecate and remove the old ones - but we want to give
> instrumentation software some migration time for that.
>
> Jean, Arjan, what would be a feasible and practical deprecation period for that? One
> kernel cycle?

more like a year

for some time software needs to support both, especially if popular 
distros stick to an older kernel like *cough* RHEL6

--
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/