[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLEfapPPU8cEfeCMq9_oG6858YzFS_fkWQEo_fxs+xde9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:53:28 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to test kernels
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> I've never heard ABI incompatibility used as an argument for perf. Ingo?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net> wrote:
> Never overtly. They're too clever for that.
If you want me to take you seriously, spare me from the conspiracy theories, OK?
I'm sure perf developers break the ABI sometimes - that happens
elsewhere in the kernel as well. However, Ted claimed that perf
developers use tools/perf as an excuse to break the ABI _on purpose_
which is something I have hard time believing.
Your snarky remarks doesn't really help this discussion either. It's
apparent from the LKML discussions that you're more interested in
arguing with the perf developers rather than helping them.
Pekka
--
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