From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758239AbZEGHay (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 03:30:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754374AbZEGHao (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 03:30:44 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57624 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753345AbZEGHan (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 03:30:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:30:37 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Paul Mundt , Christoph Hellwig , rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fr?d?ric Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: remove stray markers Message-ID: <20090507073037.GA18125@elte.hu> References: <20090506103854.GA23811@lst.de> <20090506110735.GH25203@elte.hu> <20090506111209.GA25310@lst.de> <20090506111549.GJ25203@elte.hu> <20090507020436.GB7938@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090507020436.GB7938@linux-sh.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul Mundt wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:15:49PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:07:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Also, if there's some current use of these markers then it's OK > > > > to not do this change right now but replace them with > > > > tracepoints in the v2.6.31 merge window, after both the SH and > > > > the tracing infrastructure changes are upstream. > > > > > > There's not user of these. [...] > > > > I'll defer to Paul to decide whether SH needs those markers. If he > > added them to ease his own debugging (via whatever external > > approach), then that's an OK goal and we can handle this all > > politely without destroying functionality, in the next merge window. > > They were primarily added to aid some downstream folks that were > just adding these on their own and generally not paying attention > to where the markers were being placed on subsequent merges. I > don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but as they have > proven to be useful for some people, I would rather transition > over to tracepoints during the merge window than kill them off > prematurely. fair enough! Ingo