From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757436Ab3CUL2k (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:28:40 -0400 Received: from mail-ea0-f179.google.com ([209.85.215.179]:59889 "EHLO mail-ea0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753271Ab3CUL2j (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:28:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:28:35 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: Basic perf PMU support for Haswell v9 Message-ID: <20130321112835.GA23567@gmail.com> References: <1362786573-18455-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1362786573-18455-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andi Kleen wrote: > This is based on v7 of the full Haswell PMU support, > rebased, reviewer-optimized and stripped down to the bare bones > > Most interesting new features are not in this patchkit > (full version is git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ak/linux-misc.git hsw/pmu5) > > Contains support for: > - Basic Haswell PMU and PEBS support > - Late unmasking of the PMI > - Basic LBRv4 support > > v2: Addressed Stephane's feedback. See individual patches for details. > v3: now even more bite-sized. Qualifier constraints merged earlier. > v4: Rename some variables, add some comments and other minor changes. > Add some Reviewed/Tested-bys. > v5: Address some minor review feedback. Port to latest perf/core > v6: Add just some variable names, add comments, edit descriptions, some > more testing, rebased to latest perf/core > v7: Expand comment > v8: Rename structure field. > v9: No wide counters, but add basic LBRs. Add some more > constraints. Rebase to 3.9rc1 I had another look at your latest patches and they are still quite sloppy: you never ran them through checkpatch.pl, right? Tons of warnings, quite a few of which are legitimate. These are all basic kernel hacking 101 mistakes you commited and we are already into version 9 of your patch-set ... Having to point out trivial errors in your patches again and again is not a very efficient use of my time, frankly. Thanks, Ingo