From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:26:49 +0100
Subject: [PATCH/RFC v1 0/2] Human readable performance event
	description in sysfs
In-Reply-To: <1263996979.4283.1066.camel@laptop>
References: <1263978706-15499-1-git-send-email-t.fujak@samsung.com>
	<1263978999.4283.823.camel@laptop> <op.u6tslipz7p4s8u@pikus>
	<20100120133145.GE4089@wear.picochip.com>
	<1263994779.4283.1057.camel@laptop>
	<20100120135553.GA22897@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<1263996080.4283.1064.camel@laptop>  <op.u6t4atd07p4s8u@pikus>
	<1263996979.4283.1066.camel@laptop>
Message-ID: <1263997609.4283.1067.camel@laptop>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 15:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 15:09 +0100, Micha? Nazarewicz wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:01:20 +0100, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > It seems to me userspace might care about the exact platform they're
> > > running on.
> > 
> > In my humble opinion, user space should never care about platform it's
> > running on.  Interfaces provided by kernel should suffice to implement
> > abstraction layer between user space and hardware.  If we abandon that
> > we're back in DOS times.  But hey, again, that's just my opinion.
> 
> Well, you're completely right. But the often sad reality is that perfect
> abstraction is either impossible or prohibitively expensive.

And then there is the simple matter of knowing what kind of box it is
without having to resort to a screwdriver or worse.