[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111107203514.GG24234@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:35:14 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to
test kernels
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> I guess for perf ABI, "perf test" is the closest thing to a
> specification so if your application is using something that's not
> covered by it, you might be in trouble.
I don't believe there's ever been any guarantee that "perf test" from
version N of the kernel will always work on a version N+M of the
kernel. Perhaps I am wrong, though. If that is a guarantee that the
perf developers are willing to stand behind, or have already made, I
would love to be corrected and would be delighted to hear that in fact
there is a stable, backwards compatible perf ABI.
Regards,
- Ted
--
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