On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:39:19 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 02:07 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:02:20 -0700 > > Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > >> for_each_kernel_tracepoint() is used by out-of-tree lttng module > >> and therefore cannot be changed. > > > > This is false and misleading. NACK. > > Steven, while I really don't care about this particular function, you wrote > a few emails ago, quote: > > Look, the tracepoint code was written by Mathieu for LTTng, and perf > and ftrace were able to benefit because of it, as well as your bpf > code. For this, we agreed to keep this function around for his use, > as its the only thing he requires. Everyone has been fine with that. > [...] Having that function for LTTng does not hurt us. And I will NACK > removing it. > > So later saying that "this is false and misleading" is kind of misleading > by itself. ;-) Anyway, it would probably make sense to add a comment to > for_each_kernel_tracepoint() that this is used by LTTng so that people > don't accidentally remove it due to missing in-tree user. I would think > some sort of clarification/background in a comment or such would have > avoided the whole confusion and resulting discussion around this in the > first place. I agree, a comment should be added. But the function can still be modified, which is what I meant here by being misleading. > > Btw, in networking land, as soon as there is no in-tree user for a particular > kernel function, it will get ripped out, no matter what. Given this is also > the typical convention in the kernel, it may have caused some confusion with > above preference. This is usually the case with me too. This came from Mathieu doing a lot of work to help perf and ftrace, but keep this for him to maintain LTTng. This was the solution to a long drawn out flame war. Yes, there's a lot of history behind that function, and I agree that we should comment the history behind it. > > Anyway, given v6 is out now, I've tossed the old series from bpf-next tree. > So I hope we can all move on with some more constructive discussion. :-) Yes, which we are doing around the kallsyms part. ;-) -- Steve
