From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM in-guest performance monitoring Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:45:24 +0300 Message-ID: <4DE60A34.7070603@redhat.com> References: <1305129333-7456-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4DD24544.1000408@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62313 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756837Ab1FAJpu (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2011 05:45:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DD24544.1000408@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/17/2011 12:52 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 05/11/2011 06:55 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> perf maintainers: please consider the first three patches for merging >> (the >> first two make sense even without the rest). If you're familiar with >> the Intel >> PMU, please review patch 5 as well - it effectively undoes all your work >> of abstracting the PMU into perf_events by unabstracting perf_events >> into what >> is hoped is a very similar PMU. > > Perf maintainers, ping? > Re-ping? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function