Re: [patch 07/11] x86/perf/uncore: Track packages not per cpu data

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

> > Do you have any data to back that up or is that just "believe" ?
> 
> I've seen systems with discontiguous apic ids before.
> 
> It is obvious if you consider setups with node hotplug.
> 
> BTW reading this thread you don't seem interested in any code review feedback, 
> attacking everyone, [...]

I've not seen Thomas attack anyone in this thread - I've seen him getting 
rightfully grumpy at sub-par code quality of the Intel uncore driver...

> [...] not bothering to look up data sheets, not understanding the hardware 
> you're changing the driver for, etc. Why do you even bother to post the patches?

Stop these personal attacks and stop insulting people why try to clean up the mess 
you made of a driver!

Thomas found real bugs in the driver and presented a much cleaner model for 
representing uncore PMUs, which results in nice simplifications:

   2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 220 deletions(-)

if these changes survive review and testing then they are very much 'worth it', 
and that fact should be apparent to you as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo