[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160810105858.GA29633@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:58:58 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: add enable_box for client
msr uncore
* kan.liang@...el.com <kan.liang@...el.com> wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
>
> PERF_GLOBAL_CTL could be cleared after Package C7. This patch tries to
> workaround this issue by re-enable PERF_GLOBAL_CTL in enable_box.
> The workaround does not cover all cases. It helps for new events after
> returning from C7.
> There is no drawback in letting the thing enabled, so it does not need
> disable_box here.
This changelog is very poor for similar reasons as:
Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: correct uncore num_counters
Please fix the changelog to conform to the standard changelog style:
- first describe the symptoms of the bug - how does a user notice?
- then describe how the code behaves today and how that is causing the bug
- and then only describe how it's fixed.
The first item is the most important one - while developers
(naturally) tend to concentrate on the least important point, the last
one.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists