Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:55:35 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, namhyung@kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho <acme@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PEBS level 2/3 breaks dwarf unwinding! [WAS: Re: Broken dwarf
 unwinding - wrong stack pointer register value?]
Message-ID: <20181109005535.GA6218@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <2335309.gnWok9HYb4@agathebauer>
 <20181106202411.GU6218@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <1584560.aXQ729uQp3@agathebauer>
 <7105958.qy8IzDpmRc@agathebauer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7105958.qy8IzDpmRc@agathebauer>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> Can we change this, such that perf_event_output also takes a second set of 
> registers (iregs) that get sampled for PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR? I'm very new to 
> real kernel development, what kind of ABI/API stability guarantees exist for 
> something like "perf_event_output"?

Yes you can change it.

That's no API/ABI stability guarantee for kernel internal functions, 
as long as you change all callers in tree.

-Andi