From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: PATCH [0/4] perf: clean-up of power events API Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:52:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20101019115200.GC25371@elte.hu> References: <201010062334.46971.trenn@suse.de> <4CB095FA.8060803@linux.intel.com> <20101010121928.GA2688@elte.hu> <201010191331.03080.trenn@suse.de> <20101019114501.GA25371@elte.hu> <1287488841.1994.5.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1287488841.1994.5.camel@twins> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Pierre Tardy , Frederic Weisbecker , Masami Hiramatsu , Linus Torvalds , Jean Pihet , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-users@vger.kernel.org, Frank Eigler , Mathieu Desnoyers , Tejun Heo , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 13:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Thomas Renninger 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? Thanks, Ingo