From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <paulus@bilbo.ozlabs.org>
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org",
	Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK))
	by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0AE9B7248
	for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:28:00 +1000 (EST)
Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.10.76.25])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "bilbo.ozlabs.org",
	Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22D6DDD1C
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:28:00 +1000 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <19001.31734.428534.890844@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:27:50 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] perf_counter: powerpc: Enable use of software
	counters on 32-bit powerpc
In-Reply-To: <20090617142151.GB6846@elte.hu>
References: <19000.55404.103840.393470@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<20090617142151.GB6846@elte.hu>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Ingo Molnar writes:

> Note, i've created a new branch, tip:perfcounters/powerpc, so we can 
> keep these things separate and Ben can pull them too. I see there 
> was some review feedback - do you want to send a v2 version perhaps?

Kumar's comments seemed to me to be wanting changes to accommodate
code that doesn't exist yet, so I think those changes should be done
later when that code exists and we know exactly what is needed.  So
the current patches are fine as-is IMO.

Paul.