[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130128161038.GR30577@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:10:38 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] perf, x86: Add PEBSv2 record support
> I think you should call this: PEBS v3 and not v2.
v2 is the version number in the enumeration register.
It would be confusing to use a different numbering than Intel does.
That's also the numbering that is printed in dmesg.
> We already have 2 existing formats: core and nhm.
> You're adding the hsw format.
>
> So either you add it as struct pebs_record_hsw or you
> cleanup the naming of all the structs and call them:
core is v0.
>
> struct pebs_record_v1 /* core */
> struct pebs_record_v2 /* nhm, snb, ivb */
> struct pebs_record_v3 /* hsw */
>
> That would seem more consistent to me.
I personally don't see a lot of need for a rename, but I can send
a followon patch to rename nhm to v1 and core to v0. I will do that
separately because people are already complaining that the patchkit
is too big, and it doesn't really affect the functionality.
-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