From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758654Ab0JSN2C (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:28:02 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:8261 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758570Ab0JSN2A (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:28:00 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,350,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="337833982" Message-ID: <4CBD9CDD.1010300@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:27:57 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Renninger , Mathieu Desnoyers , Tejun Heo , Frederic Weisbecker , Pierre Tardy , Jean Pihet , linux-trace-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman , Steven Rostedt , Frank Eigler , Masami Hiramatsu , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PATCH [0/4] perf: clean-up of power events API 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> <20101019115200.GC25371@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20101019115200.GC25371@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/19/2010 4:52 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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? more like a year for some time software needs to support both, especially if popular distros stick to an older kernel like *cough* RHEL6