[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111081336410.18135@tux.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:39:09 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
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: [F.A.Q.] perf ABI backwards and forwards compatibility
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Almost: they demonstrate that those parts of the ABI that these
> particular perf commands rely on have been impressively compatible.
> Do you have any sort of ABI coverage measurement, to see what
> parts of the ABI these perf commands do not use?
It's pretty obvious that perf ABI is lacking on that department based on
Vince's comments, isn't it? There's an easy fix for this too: improve
"perf test" to cover the cases you're intested in. While ABI spec would
be a nice addition, it's not going to make compatibility problems
magically go away.
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