[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB608328873B5AA9BD7ECE6BC1FC172@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:43:46 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim
<namhyung@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, "Alexander
Shishkin" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "patches@...ts.linux.dev"
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 24/71] perf/x86/msr: Switch to new Intel CPU model
defines
>> @@ -43,75 +43,75 @@ static bool test_intel(int idx, void *data)
>> boot_cpu_data.x86 != 6)
>> return false;
>
> It arguably makes these easier to review when you _aren't_ removing the
> explicit family 6 checks, but what's the plan for these? They can go
> away now, right?
Yes. I expect that one will have to go if some non-family-6 CPUs are added
to the switch. I didn't dig into what that function is testing for. But very recent
CPUs have been added, so it seems likely that future ones will be added too.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists