[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <513abce9-48f5-4dab-9e8c-7023077ea589@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:17:35 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
x86@...nel.org, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PATCH 3/9] perf/x86/intel: Use topology_cpu_type() to get
cpu-type
On 6/17/24 11:09, Pawan Gupta wrote:
>> Is this trying to make the case that get_this_hybrid_cpu_type() and
>> topology_cpu_type() are equivalent or pointing out a difference?
> Pointing out a difference. get_this_hybrid_cpu_type() misses a case when
> cpu-type is enumerated regardless of X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU. I don't think
> checking for the hybrid feature is necessary here, because there is an
> existing fixup for this case:
OK, that makes sense. Could you include that in the changelog, please?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists