linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, perf: Use a new PMU ack sequence

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151022092508.GA21192@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:25:08 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, perf: Use a new PMU ack sequence

* Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> > > v2:
> > > Use new ack sequence unconditionally. Remove pmu reset code.
> > 
> > So this is not something we can easily revert if things go bad. Esp.
> > since you build on it with the next patches.
> 
> Ok, and?

Sigh, you are being disruptive again.

> You want me to go back to the previous patch? That one is easily
> undoable (just disable the flag for the model)
> 
> Another alternative would be to fork the PMI handler into a new and
> an old version, that is switchable.

Here you pretend that you didn't read the sane solution that was suggested to you 
just three days ago:

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151019070812.GB17855@gmail.com

  " > > Ingo, do you want to first merge the safe patch and then clean up?
    >
    > Yeah, would be nice to structure it that way, out of general paranoia.
  "

I.e. first apply the safe approach, then, after the dependent changes, clean it up 
by introducing the dangerous change.

The thing is, I'm close to summarily NAK-ing any patches from you to the perf 
subsystem, due to the unacceptably low quality patches combined with obtuse 
passive-aggressive obstruction you are routinely burdening maintainers with.

Btw., I noticed that you routinely don't Cc me to perf patches. Please always Cc: 
me to perf patches (both kernel and tooling patches). I still will not apply them 
directly, only if another perf maintainer signs off on them, but I'd like to have 
a record of all your submissions.

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/