From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756356Ab3EFUTa (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 16:19:30 -0400 Received: from host122-8-static.224-95-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([95.224.8.122]:40161 "EHLO zoo.ghostprotocols.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755971Ab3EFUT3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 16:19:29 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 43102 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 16:19:29 EDT Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 05:20:08 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Michael Ellerman Cc: peterz@infradead.org, jolsa@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, rob@landley.net Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] perf: Expand definition of sysfs format attribute Message-ID: <20130506082008.GA2784@ghostprotocols.net> References: <1362370865-4437-1-git-send-email-michael@ellerman.id.au> <20130408072422.GA4476@concordia> <20130506010829.GA32607@concordia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130506010829.GA32607@concordia> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com 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 Em Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:08:30AM +1000, Michael Ellerman escreveu: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:24:22PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:21:05PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > Make it explicit that the format attributes may define overlapping bit > > > ranges. Unfortunately this was left unspecified originally, and all the > > > examples show non-overlapping ranges. I don't believe this is an ABI > > > change, as we are defining something that was previously undefined, but > > > others may disagree. > > > > > > The POWER8 PMU would like to define overlapping ranges, as bit ranges in > > > the event code have different meanings for certain events. It will also > > > allow us to define an overarching "event" field, that encompasses all > > > others. > > > > > > As far as I can see perf is comfortable with this change, however I am > > > not sure if there are any other users of the interface. > > > > Any comments on this one? > I think the consensus from Peter and Jiri was that this was OK, are you > happy to merge it? I'll do it eventually, but now I'm on vacations, so perhaps Jiri can process it and push to Ingo? Jiri? - Arnaldo