linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:40:50 +0930
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

Pekka Enberg wrote:
> And really, what do we gain by moving perf out of tree and making it
> follow its own release cycle (and getting out of sync eventually)?

I'm sure perf will change, for example as faults are discovered in it. 
Perhaps, too, the kernel side counters will change, but will the ABI? 
Peter Zijlstra comment ("we most certainly intend to maintain its ABI")
implies it won't, or won't in such a way as to break user space tools.

What I'm saying is that this doesn't sound like something that needs
user-space in lock-step with kernel.
--
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/