From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leon Romanovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rdma/ib: Add trace point macros to display human-readable values Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 08:19:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20171102061934.GX16127@mtr-leonro.local> References: <20171030215809.31286.46685.stgit@manet.1015granger.net> <20171101062743.GO16127@mtr-leonro.local> <1509551986.2530.20.camel@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fMu+u8YVVpMOH5Qg" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1509551986.2530.20.camel-Sjgp3cTcYWE@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "rostedt-nx8X9YLhiw1AfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org" , "chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "corbet-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org --fMu+u8YVVpMOH5Qg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:59:47PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 08:27 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > Bart, Steve > > > > You attended the MS track, and for the rest of us, the quote below > > sounds a little bit cryptic. Does the quote below mean that Chuck's > > proposal is no-go? > > > > From LWN.net "Another attempt to address the tracepoint ABI problem" [1] > > > > "The solution that was arrived at for now, as related by Torvalds, > > is to hold off on adding explicit tracepoints to the kernel. Instead, > > support will be added to make it easy for an application to attach a > > BPF script to any function in the kernel, with access to that function's > > arguments." > > > > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/737530/ > > What I remember is that Linus does not require us to avoid breaking user > space applications that use tracepoints. Powertop however is an exception > to this rule. Although it uses tracepoints, we must not break it. I also > remember that Linus noticed that the purpose of many tracepoints is to > allow users to trace a function and its arguments. Linus wants a better > approach for tracing kernel functions than adding an explicit tracepoint > to each kernel function. Maybe I wasn't listening carefully enough but I > haven't heard Linus saying that we would not be allowed to add new > tracepoints. Like Steven, I wasn't in MS either and the sentence "is to hold off on adding explicit tracepoints to the kernel" made me worry. Thanks. > > Bart. --fMu+u8YVVpMOH5Qg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEkhr/r4Op1/04yqaB5GN7iDZyWKcFAln6uPYACgkQ5GN7iDZy WKfwXxAArEE3qIYeUnib+m/XTQyl1E1gB0LX5KHwVX0PnKMM9ehHS1n5/GEJ2ubs qCF6ITiRE7h/V2kj484h6fZqaaJYF5N8wIDikTeTP0l5dIBn0hQdmZxFTnBDsGAI aFJBqN3dfC3/wSLa6RSsyVNmHaJMXMyCpjXAgqycFhW5PVzdw1Q0RrrOzG0DQtTx h0Qot3NLyJ4bJgvQedJadtybiG5NdvZuHhwc4t3Wyn5MZRIUgG4q2p7Alx78Rzzp UvmZ+mkLOxR381Spt3CQYmkiU50SlehxV3nHwPWjJ4RO4jcumjnvzTcXhZQFLftq 1YHWV9bJE6hcvM9KD6peUnUaq85n5fTjvBw43TKomF75ZspA0X4aiYmY9nxMoXjr ItM7Y0k13N7PLnKE81FKC1akcVYYdCdYvXXCl2kJd/6Ha1zRIWMAGEiu0qkWFy3F jLnf5ilP/RGcgfkcB+sPAHQhY7s1BS6B5d71+cjw5QyWmJlbc3VFX4kq6pzazpUI J4iUlQtdQdJBWyUTaauU58d8i30vgE5zKZh77g7u9fp1kDFLduS20qzKjVmyZ1ke ebTw3G4A+FCeD+wMyYhkAYMaM82EPKosSxm/aHK9PTkeggr7IFnFSA5Abj2zdz5b /1DnYh041VHC0v8O9fp4LenLibb8+9u5+ejD+82DNSgwUz+09ZY= =gwF/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fMu+u8YVVpMOH5Qg-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html