On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:03 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> I think Arjan's complaints at the KS stemmed from prior sporadic declarations on 
> lkml that there is no tracepoint ABI _at all_, and that powertop/latencytop could 
> break anytime. 

And it will, afaik Arjan refused to even parse the format file which is
part of the tracepoint abi and I'll be changing those for the scheduler.

I really object to not being able to make sane changes just because some
tool is too lazy to even implement the full ABI that was exposed.


quoted text
> I think Arjan's complaints at the KS stemmed from prior sporadic declarations on 
> lkml that there is no tracepoint ABI _at all_, and that powertop/latencytop could 
> break anytime. 

I fully intent to break powertop/latencytop if they refuse to use the
format file, deal with it.

Also, in the unlikely event we need to re-order the task->state bits
I'll do so without a moments hesitation, regardless of who consumes them
through the scheduler tracepoints, that's simply not stuff that should
be tied down.

The same for anything that tries to interpret task->prio through the
tracepoints.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/