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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 01/17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Any tool that requests the signal trace event, and copies 
> > the full (and now larger) record it got in the ring-buffer, 
> > without expanding the target record's size accordingly will 
> > *BREAK*.
> >
> > I do not claim that tools will break in practice - i'm 
> > raising the *possibility* out of caution and i'm frustrated 
> > that you *STILL* don't understand how ABIs are maintained in 
> > Linux.
> 
> OK, but what if we rename the tracepoint?
> 
> IOW, add the new tracepoint and remove the old one. Of course, 
> this can confuse the users of the current "signal_generate", 
> but this is safe. b413d48a does this...
> 
> Or this is not allowed too?

Everything is allowed that makes sense and does not break apps, 
with a strong preference towards the simplest possible variant.

I.e. your patch.

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/