On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 15:30:04 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:

> This should therefore leave a door open to adding new tracepoints: cases
> where the data gathered is shown to be useful enough for tools targeting
> an audience wider than just kernel developers. To improve over the current
> situation, we should think about documenting some rules about how those
> tools should cope with tracepoints changing over time (event version,
> tools backward compatibility, and so on), and make sure the ABI exposes
> the information required to help tools cope with change.

As I mentioned earlier. If a function based event proves to be useful
enough to pull out information that sysadmins et.al. find beneficial,
than that could be used as an argument to create a normal static
tracepoint for that information.

-- Steve

Reply via email to