From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754820AbYDRKwI (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:52:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750798AbYDRKv4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:51:56 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:54002 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbYDRKv4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:51:56 -0400 Message-ID: <48087D42.9090807@firstfloor.org> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:51:46 +0200 From: Andi Kleen User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20060911) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Alexander van Heukelum , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26 References: <20080416202338.GA6007@elte.hu> <878wzdikwk.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <1208426793.10305.1248377703@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20080418083824.GA9636@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080418083824.GA9636@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Andi will have to prove his points by coming up with competing benchmark > results - My point was really: "don't merge based on bogus benchmarks" or perhaps better put: every time you see a benchmark result turn on your brain and make sure it is really measuring something that makes sense and also "don't put results from bogus benchmarks into change logs" I actually don't have a big issue with the patches themselves (they seem reasonably clean so they don't make the code worse, although I don't think they are a significant improvement over the previous code either), just with the methology they were submitted. > I dont really understand the negativism that comes from Andi - he was I object to using bogus benchmarks. > very much aware of the various iterations and benchmarks you did when > developing this rather cool feature: he participated in those threads > and was Cc:-ed as well. The "100% bogus benchmark with the most The initial "1...n" benchmark after which you merged the patch definitely fit my "bogus" description. If there was a later better one I had missed that indeed, sorry and I don't remember being cc'ed on one such (except in Alexander's latest answer which satisfied me) -Andi