Re: [PATCH] perf_counter: extensible perf_counter_attr

[Paul Mackerras]

Ingo Molnar writes:

> * Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Since this is a user-visible structure, you've just introduced an 
> > ABI difference between 32-bit and 64-bit processes, which we've 
> > managed to avoid so far. [...]
> 
> This is a good point too - handling pointers in ABIs is possible but 
> should be avoided as much as possible: it creates the need to 
> introduce a compat_sys_perf_counter_open() and doubles the syscall 
> table complexity.
> 
> Lets do the s/__reserved_1/attr_size ABI i suggested (i outlined 
> various properties of it in the previous mail). Agreed?

Yep, sounds good.

We also need a way to allow access to random machine-specific features
that might not be supported in a generic way, such as the instruction
matching CAM on POWER4/PPC970, or (apparently) PEBS.  That's what I
had intended exclusive groups + the extra_config_len field to be used
for, but Peter removed extra_config_len...

Paul.
--
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/