On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:56:56PM -0500, Mike Wolf wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 12:52 -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 06:40:12PM -0500, Mike Wolf wrote: > > > Resending. the patch was munged last time. > > > > > > > > > Oprofile is changing the naming it is using for the compatibility modes. > > > Instead of having compat-power<x>, oprofile will go to family naming > > > convention and use compat-v<x>. Currently only compat-v1 will be > > > defined. > > > > Compat V1 of what? powerpc64? IBM powerpc64 PMC? > > IBM powerpc PMC
Sounds like it'd be appropriate to have an ibm somewhere in the version string then. > > The performance > > monitors are not architected, to give them a version number without > > vendor information seems weird. > The current ones all fall into one family and they may be architected in > the future. Not all powerpc PMC implementations do, not even all ppc64 ones -- PA6T implements a completely different performance monitor. The current IBM PMC is included in the appendix of the architecture as a suggestion on how to implement it, but it is explicitly specified as being implementation dependent in the architecture. > > Also, doesn't this break compatibility with existing userspace tools? > AFAIK there is nothing else that uses these. Oprofile patch was > rejected and this new naming was suggested from that community. Ok, as long as you are 100% sure there are no proprietary users either. -Olof _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
