On 6/18/26 5:38 AM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 6/18/26 10:30, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: >> On 6/18/26 10:21, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >>> On 6/17/26 20:18, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: >>>> >>>> Yeah and I don't recall ever that a change to a mm tracepoint would ever >>>> break someone who'd complain and we'd have to revert it. >>> Really? :) >>> >>> Read the context of the link I posted once more. >> >> Ah, I see. I've only read the single mail from Steven that referred to the >> old powertop breakage and didn't notice the context. >> >> But I don't think these worries should stop us from adding easily usable >> tracepoints. > > Steve explained a way how apparently scheduler people are handling it without > trace events. > > You can always remove/modify tracepoints, but not trace events. > > Anyhow, just wanted to mention it, because so far MM didn't rally know about > this implication. >
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll sent v4 using DECLARE_TRACE() to avoid creating a new event.
