[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1307241449450.8520@pianoman.cluster.toy>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
acme@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, trinity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools, perf: Add a precise event qualifier v2
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Sasha Levin wrote:
> It's probably fine to change a testing ABI once in a while, but when things
> like trinity start breaking that often due to ABI changes in the same exact
> place, that's too much IMO.
The problem is they want the ABI to be "whatever our closely-coupled
userspace perf tool accepts as input" which is an often-changing
complicated (and undocumented) set of LEX and YACC parsers.
I guess we could just give in and declare that to be the official
perf sysfs interface in the ABI documentation.
It's frustrating trying to maintain tools that use the perf_event
interface because the inclusion of perf in the kernel is used as an excuse
to constantly break the ABI.
Vince
--
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