From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Add wrapper script around QEMU to
 test kernels
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:35:14 -0500
Message-ID: <20111107203514.GG24234@thunk.org>
References: <4EB6BEFA.6000303@codemonkey.ws>
 <20111106183132.GA4500@thunk.org>
 <CAOJsxLHvYo5zA+_m-AXuZHjAcGKE5q0ytmPCZ0Gye52LWq1p9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJsxLG6kyq-RoQiBj0B_tThvOy1AxJf6XB2VfQFQJkwQ5cHcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111106231953.GD4500@thunk.org>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111070838520.1823@tux.localdomain>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1111071156230.28615@pianoman.cluster.toy>
 <20111107175942.GA9395@elte.hu>
 <y0mpqh3og3v.fsf@fche.csb>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111072204370.3082@tux.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Vince Weaver <vince@deater.net>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1111072204370.3082@tux.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> I guess for perf ABI, "perf test" is the closest thing to a
> specification so if your application is using something that's not
> covered by it, you might be in trouble.

I don't believe there's ever been any guarantee that "perf test" from
version N of the kernel will always work on a version N+M of the
kernel.  Perhaps I am wrong, though. If that is a guarantee that the
perf developers are willing to stand behind, or have already made, I
would love to be corrected and would be delighted to hear that in fact
there is a stable, backwards compatible perf ABI.

Regards,

						- Ted