On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:00:06 -0400 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 18:26:24 +0200 > "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah, I was fearing that when I read in [2]: > > > > "It has become clear in the past that this promise extends to > > tracepoints, most notably in 2011 when a tracepoint change broke > > powertop and had to be reverted." > > Technically the issue is with trace events and not tracepoints. The > difference is that a trace event is created via the TRACE_EVENT() macro > which defines what is to be collected from the tracepoint and exposes that > information to tracefs which applications can easily see. > > A tracepoint is simply the hook in the code that you can attach to. Trace > events create a callback from that hook to extract the data from the > tracepoint to fill in the fields. The problem here appears to be that "ras:memory_failure_event" became "memory_failure:memory_failure_event". Perhaps we can add infrastructure to permit aliasing "ras" onto "memory_failure". So if we make these namespace alterations we can easily preserve back-compatibility?
