[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091126090110.GD1389@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:01:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: "K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v6] hw-breakpoints: Rewrite on top of perf events v6
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > Well we have PERF_TYPE_BREAKPOINT right now. I agree that it should
> > be finalized in some sort of extensible ABI real soon - we dont want
> > (and dont need to) add all features that might be possible in the
> > future.
>
> Concerning in-kernel users, it's not a worry. The in-kernel api is not
> supposed to be stable and shouldn't, especially for such a very young
> facility like generic breakpoints.
in-kernel we dont worry about indeed (we can change and iterate APIs
freely there) - it is PERF_TYPE_BREAKPOINT that we need to make sure is
extensible enough.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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