Oops, I thought sending this series for RFC is the "effort" you mean
to audit the users :/

Correct me if I'm making stupid moves here and enlighten me what
I should do furthermore to audit the users.

Thanks,
Ze

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 7:47 PM Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 05:01:22PM +0800, Ze Gao wrote:

quoted

Report priorities in 'short' and prev_state in 'int' to save
some buffer space. And also reorder the fields so that we take
struct alignment into consideration to make the record compact.

Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

I don't see a single line describing the effort you've done to audit
consumers of this tracepoint.

*IF* you're wanting to break this tracepoint ABI, because seriously
that's what it is, then you get to invest the time and effort to audit
the users.