[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071119205330.GD27571@frankl.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:53:30 -0800
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: paulus@...ba.org, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...e.de, mucci@...utk.edu, wcohen@...hat.com,
robert.richter@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
Subject: Re: [perfmon] Re: [perfmon2] perfmon2 merge news
David,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 05:08:43AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> Instead of blabbering further about this topic, I decided to put my
> code where my mouth is and spent the weekend porting the perfmon2
> kernel bits, and the user bits (libpfm and pfmon) to sparc64.
>
I appreciate your effort. I am glad to see that the interface
and implementation survived yet another architecture. I think at this
point ARM is the only major architecture missing. In anycase, I would
be happy to integrate your sparc64 patches.
> As a result I've found that perfmon2 is quite nice and allows
> incredibly useful and powerful tools to be written. The syscalls
> aren't that bad and really I see not reason to block it's inclusion.
>
As I said earlier, I am not opposed to changing the syscalls. I have
proposed a few schemes to address the issue of versioning. If vectors
arguments are problematic, we can go with single register/call.
I think there are other areas where perfmon2 could benefit from the
help of the LKML developers. I will post a list shortly.
> I rescind all of my earlier objections, let's merge this soon :-)
Thanks.
--
-Stephane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists