Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: make signal tracepoints more useful

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 08:45 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > Looks good to me at a first (quick) sight, except this bit 
> > which changes the ABI:
> > 
> > > > 	-       TP_printk("sig=%d errno=%d code=%d comm=%s pid=%d",
> > > > 	+       TP_printk("sig=%d errno=%d code=%d comm=%s pid=%d grp=%d res=%d",
> > 
> > That's not how we change tracepoints generally - we add a new 
> > one and eventually phase out the old one. Which apps/tools rely 
> > on the old tracepoint? If it's exactly zero apps then we might 
> > be able to change it, but this needs to be investigated.
> 
> But this tracepoint wasn't changed, it was added on to. 
> There's a difference. Any tool that uses this (including 
> something like powertop) should be able to handle it. [...]

That's mostly true in theory - the question is, is it true in 
practice?

Say if an app relies on the smaller data structure, it sure 
might get surprised by the kernel writing a wider record ...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/