[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1408272047360.3323@nanos>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:50:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf, x86: Remove incorrect model number from Haswell
perf
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:53:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Try again when you figured yourself out what number means what and why
> > 71 is bogus.
>
> 71 is definitely not a Haswell, but a Broadwell.
Fine. So the changelog should tell so.
> However it was removed from the Broadwell patch based on Peter's
> feedback.
>
> So technically the patch is not needed right now because there
> would be no duplicates (unless 71 was readded), so the compiler
> would not complain.
It's very well technically needed simply because its not a haswell and
if it's run on real model 71 hardware we'll get some interesting stuff
to debug.
> However it's still incorrect for Haswell, so I maintain removing
> it is the right thing to do.
I did not argue against the removal itself. That's fine and obviously
correct if model 71 is not a haswell. All I want is a proper patch (1
line) and a proper changelog explaining WHY this is the right thing to
do.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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