Re: Perf ABI versioning

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> 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 ...


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-trace-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux