On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 15:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> 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
