Rick, On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 04:17:28PM -0500, Rick Kufrin wrote: > > I'm wondering about the correct way to refer to various Perfmon > and libpfm versions. My understanding is that Perfmon version 1 > was for 2.4 kernels and that there were user libraries libpfm > versioned 0.x, 1.x and 2.x to be used with those kernels. For 2.6 > kernels, the kernel support went to version 2 with libpfm 3.x > to match. Is this correct? (I guess I am asking this directly > to Stephane.... :) > That is correct.
> The current work that is ongoing to add new architectures - is > that still under a Perfmon 2 major version (2.2 and libpfm 3.2?). > I've taken a look at the SF releases and that's what it seems like to > me, but I wanted to double-check. > Yes. Not that I particularly like this numbering scheme. The day perfmon is integrated into mainline I think we need to pick a new base reference version (maybe 4.0) and align the user level stuff as well. -- -Stephane _______________________________________________ perfmon mailing list [email protected] http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/
