Re: [F.A.Q.] perf ABI backwards and forwards compatibility

[Ingo Molnar]

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> [...] 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.

Yes, exactly - 'perf test' has been written with that exact purpose. 
In practice 'perf' will cover almost all parts of the ABI.

The one notable thing that isnt being tested in a natural way is the 
'group of events' abstraction - which, ironically, has been added on 
the perfmon guys' insistence. No app beyond the PAPI self-test makes 
actual use of it though, which results in an obvious lack of testing.

Vince: the code is in tools/perf/builtin-test.c and our offer still 
stands, feel free to extend it. Maybe there's some other volunteer 
willing to do that?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/