[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809290817160.1432@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:19:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] perf: Per PMU access controls (paranoid setting)
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> So there isn't a single answer, and that is why it is important
> that this if configurable.
I said clearly that I'm not opposed against making it configurable. But
because there is no single answer, it's even more important to have proper
documentation. And that's all I'm asking for aside of making it opt-in
instead of a wholesale expose everything approach.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists