[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110602074530.GF2150@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:45:30 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Vince Weaver <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: perf: definition of a "regression"
* Vince Weaver <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 23:38 -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > > on that note (and while trying to document exactly what the ioctls do) it
> > > seems that a PERF_EVENT_IOC_REFRESH with an argument of anything higher
> > > than one does not work on kernels 2.6.36 and newer. The behavior acts
> > > as if 1 was passed, even if you pass in, say, 3.
> >
> > Urgh, no that should definitely work. Thanks for the test-case, I'll
> > work on that (probably not until Monday though, but who knows).
>
> So wait, the two regressions I found in 2.6.37 are WONTFIX because
> they are too old, even though they break existing userspace code?
>
> And this older regression in 2.6.36 is going to be fixed, even
> though perf, PAPI, and libpfm4 don't trigger the buggy
> functionality at all?
Btw., these considerations are flexible and we can reconsider and
change the WONTFIX if there's a patch available and doesn't look
horrible to backport. We can also mark fixes that havent been marked
-stable originally as -stable later on, etc.
So please don't feel needlessly bitter about past decisions: when
there's some good technical solution to a problem (or we were plain
out wrong about a decision) we try hard not to stand in the way.
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