On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 08:39:09PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 07/23/2013 06:51 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 05:27:43PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote: > >>> > >>>I hate having to justify why breaking the ABI is unacceptable. > >Well it's a testing ABI, so we can do changes to it. > > The testing ABI has a simple policy about changes: > > The interface can be changed to add new features, but the > current interface will not break by doing this, unless grave > errors or security problems are found in them. > > It's probably fine to change a testing ABI once in a while, but when things > like trinity start breaking that often due to ABI changes in the same exact > place, that's too much IMO. It sounds like trinity is breaking (well printing a message, not really breaking) on any addition. So if we follow that the perf sysfs interface would be completely frozen and can never be extended over today. I don't think it's a big problem that a test tool needs to be extended when the software it's testing changes. If there are enough other widely used programs that actually break from additions probably would need a v2 of the sysfs interface for extensions (with new file or directory names), and keep v1 frozen for compatibility. But I don't think that's the case today? -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
