From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:46:44 +0000
Subject: Re: [perfmon] Re: quick overview of the perfmon2 interface
Message-Id: <20051222054644.0b9da029.akpm@osdl.org>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <3C87FFF91369A242B9C9147F8BD0908A02C69459@cacexc04.americas.cpqcorp.net>
In-Reply-To: <3C87FFF91369A242B9C9147F8BD0908A02C69459@cacexc04.americas.cpqcorp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Truong, Dan" <dan.truong@hp.com>
Cc: stephane.eranian@hp.com, perfmon@napali.hpl.hp.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, perfctr-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

"Truong, Dan" <dan.truong@hp.com> wrote:
>
> The PMU is becoming a standard commodity. Once Perfmon is
> "the" Linux interface, all the tools can align on it and
> coexist, push their R&D forward, and more importantly become
> fully productized for businesses usage.
>

The apparently-extreme flexibility of the perfmon interfaces would tend to
militate against that, actually.  It'd become better productised if it had
one interface and stuck to it.

(I haven't processed Stephane's reply yet - will get there)