lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-08 12:41    [W:4.170 / U:0.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site