From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39E5C43387 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2980D20827 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:30:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2980D20827 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43YtRF0xbbzDqVv for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 00:30:01 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.101.70; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=andrew.murray@arm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43Yt4n25sRzDqVl for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 00:14:01 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CDB1596; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:13:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.37.6.11]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CC8F3F70D; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:13:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:13:57 +0000 From: Andrew Murray To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] arm: perf: conditionally use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE Message-ID: <20190108131357.GF56789@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1546878450-20341-1-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com> <1546878450-20341-6-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com> <20190108102802.GC6808@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190108130740.GC56789@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20190108131031.GG6808@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190108131031.GG6808@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1+81 (426a6c1) (2018-08-26) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Will Deacon , Paul Mackerras , Shawn Guo , x86@kernel.org, Russell King , Ingo Molnar , Matt Turner , suzuki.poulose@arm.com, Sascha Hauer , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ivan Kokshaysky , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Richard Henderson , robin.murphy@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:10:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:07:41PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote: > > > Yes I found lots of examples like this across the tree whilst doing this > > work. However I decided to initially start with simply removing duplicated > > code as a result of adding this flag and attempting to preserve existing > > functionality. I thought that if I add missing checks then the patchset > > will get much bigger and be harder to merge. I would like to do this though > > as another non-cross-arch series. > > > > Can we limit this patch series to the minimal changes required to fully > > use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE and then attempt to fix these existing problems > > in subsequent patch sets? > > Ok, but it would've been nice to see that mentioned somewhere. I'll update the cover leter on any next revision. I'll try to be clearer next time with my intentions. Andrew Murray