[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150511100030.GA15166@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:00:30 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: fix IMC missing box initialization
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 03:43:32AM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > This leads me to believe that this patch:
> > > >
> > > > commit c05199e5a57a579fea1e8fa65e2b511ceb524ffc
> > > > Author: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
> > > > Date: Tue Jan 20 04:54:25 2015 +0000
> > > >
> > > > perf/x86/intel/uncore: Move uncore_box_init() out of driver
> > > initialization
> > > >
> > > > If I revert it, I bet things will work again.
> > >
> > > Yes the initialization needs to be moved out of the IPI context.
>
> I'm for the clean revert I think. Crashing is bad, but hiding/delaying
> it seems counter productive too, it'll just mean we'll only learn about
> it later.
So should I revert c05199e5a57a, with a Cc: stable?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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