From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754754AbZCHVFs (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:05:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754174AbZCHVFj (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:05:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:54484 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753953AbZCHVFi (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:05:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 22:05:21 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, jaswinder@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] x86: perf_counter cleanup Message-ID: <20090308210521.GA17491@elte.hu> References: <1236545948.22914.3648.camel@twins> <49B432A4.7010807@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49B432A4.7010807@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 15:52 +0000, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > >> Commit-ID: e255357764f92afcafafbd4879b222b8c752065a > >> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/e255357764f92afcafafbd4879b222b8c752065a > >> Author: "Jaswinder Singh Rajput" > >> AuthorDate: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:09:49 +0530 > >> Commit: Ingo Molnar > >> CommitDate: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:26:50 +0100 > >> > >> x86: perf_counter cleanup > >> > >> Remove unused variables and duplicate header file. > > > > Why did you commit this? > > > > Until someone from AMD steps up and either tells us they're > > going to be 48bits _ALWAYS_ or that it's impossible to > > detect dynamically, I'd rather try and get the dynamic thing > > working. > > That would be good, but there really is absolutely no reason > to leave in variables which are unused in the current code and > therefore give a gcc warning. It's not like adding new > declaration is hard. yeah. Adding a TODO there might be worth doing though. Ingo