linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf, x86: Use INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1409102236120.4178@nanos>
Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:38:50 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf, x86: Use INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT for
 PRECDIST

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:59:26AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:49:08PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > The earlier commit 86a04461a made near all PEBS on
> > > Sandy/IvyBridge/Haswell to reject non zero flags.
> > 
> > What's magic about nehalem and westmere?
> 
> I wasn't able to confirm their behavior explicitly, so I felt
> it best to leave them alone.
> 
> But in principle adding the _FLAGS changes there too would
> make sense too.

Can you please once in a while come up with a precise answer to a
question instead of wrapping your internal knowledge into "in
principle", "would" and other magic keywords?

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/