[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906111955120.3237@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"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
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Al Viro wrote:
>
> So could you please clarify the situation? If the ABI compatibility
> requirements remain the same as they used to be, whether the userland code
> is in-tree or not, I'm fine with the entire thing. If they do not (and *ONLY*
> in that case), I think we have a real problem.
I think the ABI requirements are the same.
That said, I also suspect that as with oprofile itself, we'll end up
having expansions of the ABI that may well be CPU-specific. I also suspect
that there will probably be breakage early on just because things will
inevitably settle.
And I think that for something like a profiling tool, such breakage is
much more acceptable than for the actual binaries you'd profile. It's not
like we're talking about breaking the boot or functionality of a machine,
as happens when we break the X server (which has happened).
Linus
--
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