From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:29:14 +0200 From: Robert Richter Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/oprofile: Remove deprecated create_workqueue Message-ID: <20160613162914.GK25086@rric.localdomain> References: <20160607215912.GA19722@Karyakshetra> <20160609090056.GC3250@osiris> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160609090056.GC3250@osiris> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Bhaktipriya Shridhar , Martin Schwidefsky , Tejun Heo , oprofile-list@lists.sf.net, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hendrik Brueckner , Andreas Krebbel , Andreas Arnez , William Cohen List-ID: Heiko, On 09.06.16 11:00:56, Heiko Carstens wrote: > However I'm wondering if we shouldn't simply remove at least the s390 > specific hwswampler code from the oprofile module. This would still leave > the common code timer based sampling mode for oprofile working on s390. > > It looks like the oprofile user space utility nowadays (since 2012) uses > the kernel perf interface instead of the oprofile interface anyway, if > present. So the oprofile module itself doesn't seem to have too many users > left. > > Any opinions? yes, the kernel driver is not necessary for oprofile userland for a while now. There is no ongoing development any longer, most patches are due to changes in the kernel apis. So if there is code that needs a larger rework due to other kernel changes and there is no user anymore, I am fine with removing the code instead of reworking it. I still would just keep existing code as long as we can keep it unchanged (some like the lightwight of oprofile, esp. in the embedded space). If there is a user of the code, a Tested-by would be good for new code changes. If there are users of the hwswampler, speak up now. Else, let's just remove it. -Robert