Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:05:58 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux |
| |
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:58:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Al Viro wrote: > > > > So could you please clarify the situation? If the ABI compatibility > > requirements remain the same as they used to be, whether the userland code > > is in-tree or not, I'm fine with the entire thing. If they do not (and *ONLY* > > in that case), I think we have a real problem. > > I think the ABI requirements are the same.
OK, then.
> That said, I also suspect that as with oprofile itself, we'll end up > having expansions of the ABI that may well be CPU-specific. I also suspect > that there will probably be breakage early on just because things will > inevitably settle. > > And I think that for something like a profiling tool, such breakage is > much more acceptable than for the actual binaries you'd profile. It's not > like we're talking about breaking the boot or functionality of a machine, > as happens when we break the X server (which has happened).
Sure.
| |