From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754500Ab0F2SK6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:10:58 -0400 Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:44385 "EHLO mail-ww0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753212Ab0F2SK5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:10:57 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=WryZ9s9qx0SaLtTUzLNKvhdkgSxTYfVK5CrrswS2Mq3UCRgvgbG7MDjC/5MgdT62Ex 2ndW8gKAVgYGdrK3VPs1r361JvsaL2r0oLR3iXJX0MPTWzU2XRT29sf6ih3kD8jbdiUl Jcbr08Vd25h5w/SM86bxRj/ptLptFMlRsko9k= Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:11:06 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: paulus , stephane eranian , Robert Richter , Will Deacon , Paul Mundt , Cyrill Gorcunov , Lin Ming , Yanmin , Deng-Cheng Zhu , David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/11] perf: Default PMU ops Message-ID: <20100629181104.GC11967@nowhere> References: <20100624142804.431553874@chello.nl> <20100624143406.993794468@chello.nl> <20100629145806.GE5318@nowhere> <1277823591.1868.43.camel@laptop> <20100629150305.GG5318@nowhere> <1277829250.1868.46.camel@laptop> <20100629180745.GA11967@nowhere> <1277834950.1868.56.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1277834950.1868.56.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:09:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 20:07 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 17:03 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > You mean, if (!pmu->start_txn && pmu->pmu_enable) { /* install defaults > > > > > */ } ? > > > neglected pmu implementations shouldn't impact software pmus. > > With the above and not providing ->pmu_enable you get that. But we don't need to provide a pmu_enable for software events, right?