[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48087D42.9090807@firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:51:46 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [v2.6.26] what's brewing in x86.git for v2.6.26
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists