Re: Perf ABI versioning

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Jan 24 2011 - 16:28:58 EST

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This may be generally useful to help dealing with tracepoint ABI changes.
> But instead of a global tracing ABI number, I would rather suggest one number per
> tracepoint subsystem (sched, power, etc...).

Nooooooooooo ... !!! :-)

Please lets stop this madness before it gets too serious: we dont do ABI version
numbering in Linux, full stop.

We use 'natural' ABIs where the lack of an ABI component triggers some sort of
clean, finegrained error. Like a -EINVAL on a not-yet-implemented ABI component, a
non-existent file entry, or -ENOSYS on a non-existent syscall.

Such a design is arbitrarily backportable or forward portable, it's extensible and
it is actually maintainable.

In the ABI version numbering direction lies Windows madness ...


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at