[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1d9209e0-52a0-4b26-a0a4-dcceff4c4acc@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:28:40 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Eranian Stephane <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] perf/x86/intel: Fix ARCH_PERFMON_NUM_COUNTER_LEAF
On 2025-01-27 4:29 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:43:53AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>> But they are used for a 64-bit register.
>> The ARCH_PERFMON_NUM_COUNTER_LEAF is for the CPUID enumeration, which is
>> a u32.
>
> A well, but CPUID should be using unions, no?
>
> we have cpuid10_e[abd]x cpuid28_e[abc]x, so wheres cpuid23_e?x at?
>
Sure, I will add a cpuid23_e?x to make them consistent.
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists