Re: [PATCH 3/6] dax: add tracepoint infrastructure, PMD tracing
From: Al Viro
Date: Sun Nov 27 2016 - 21:09:46 EST
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 04:58:43PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> You are living in some unrealistic dream-world where you think you can
> get the right tracepoint on the first try.
> So there is no way in hell I would ever mark any tracepoint "stable"
> until it has had a fair amount of use, and there are useful tools that
> actually make use of it, and it has shown itself to be the right
> And once that actually happens, what's the advantage of marking it
> stable? None. It's a catch-22. Before it has uses and has been tested
> and found to be good, it's not stable. And after, it's pointless.
> So at no point does such a "stable" tracepoint marking make sense. At
> most, you end up adding a comment saying "this tracepoint is used by
> tools such-and-such".
I can't speak for Dave, but I suspect that it's more about "this, this and
that tracepoints are purely internal and we can and will change them whenever
we bloody feel like that; stick your fingers in those and they _will_ get
Incidentally, take a look at
trace_ocfs2_file_aio_read(inode, filp, filp->f_path.dentry,
(unsigned long long)OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_blkno,
to->nr_segs); /* GRRRRR */
Note that there is nothing whatsoever protecting the use of ->d_name in
there (not that poking in iov_iter guts was a good idea). Besides, suppose
something *did* grab a hold of that one a while ago. What would we have
to do to avoid stepping on its toes every time when somebody call ocfs2
->splice_read(), which has recently started to go through ->read_iter()
calls? Prepend something like if (!(to->type & ITER_PIPE)) to it?
I'm very tempted to just go and remove it, along with its analogues.
If nothing else, the use of ->d_name *is* racy, and while it might be
tolerable for occasional debugging, for anything in heavier use it's
asking for trouble...