On 04/04/2017 12:59 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Phil, > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Philip Mucci <mu...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> Hi Stephane, >> >> Please please consider this type of ABI change a compile time option. >> Breaking the ABI to use a set of hardware that most users don’t use (nor >> have permissions to use courtesy of our friend perf_event_paranoid) really >> doesn’t make sense. >> > I will revert this patch and release 4.9. > Would that solve your problem?
Hi Stephane, RHEL 7 has libpfm-4.7, so having libpfm-4.9 would avoid the abi issue when in the future libpfm is rebased. As far ask keeping this capability of raw umasks wider than 32 bits would it be possible to use some of reserved_bits for the additional part of the umask? There are 30 reserved bits there. -Will > >> phil >> >> On Apr 1, 2017, at 1:03 AM, Stephane Eranian <eran...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> Ok, my bad. That was not my goal here. >> We can revert this change. But to enable support, this struct will >> need to change. >> So it will incur some ABI change. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ perfmon2-devel mailing list perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
