* Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> wrote:
> This may be generally useful to help dealing with tracepoint ABI changes.
>
> But instead of a global tracing ABI number, I would rather suggest one number
> per
> tracepoint subsystem (sched, power, etc...).
Nooooooooooo ... !!! :-)
Please lets stop this madness before it gets too serious: we dont do ABI
version
numbering in Linux, full stop.
We use 'natural' ABIs where the lack of an ABI component triggers some sort of
clean, finegrained error. Like a -EINVAL on a not-yet-implemented ABI
component, a
non-existent file entry, or -ENOSYS on a non-existent syscall.
Such a design is arbitrarily backportable or forward portable, it's extensible
and
it is actually maintainable.
In the ABI version numbering direction lies Windows madness ...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-trace-users" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
