From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756106Ab3BRIUI (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:20:08 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:39107 "EHLO mail-ee0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755349Ab3BRIUF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:20:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:20:01 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Andrew Morton , jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf, x86: Add Haswell PEBS record support v3 Message-ID: <20130218082001.GA15591@gmail.com> References: <1360771693-32063-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1360771693-32063-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1360771693-32063-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andi Kleen wrote: > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c > @@ -41,6 +41,22 @@ struct pebs_record_nhm { > u64 status, dla, dse, lat; > }; > > +/* > + * Same as pebs_record_nhm, with two additional fields. > + */ > +struct pebs_record_hsw { > + struct pebs_record_nhm nhm; > + /* > + * Real IP of the event. In the Intel documentation this > + * is called eventingrip. > + */ > + u64 ip_of_the_event; Sigh. In a prior review I objected to the original field's 'eventingrip' name: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1434494 ... because it's a misnomer on so many levels. (What is an 'eventing'? What 'grip' does it have on anything? Whyisthenamemergedtogether?) But, instead of just renaming it to something usable you renamed it to an equally silly "ip_of_the_event" field name. Just do a 'git grep of_the_' in the kernel source to see how silly the name you picked is. Why are you doing this passive-aggressive crap? Do you want to drag out the review even more and delay the Haswell enabling patches to v3.10 or beyond? Thanks, Ingo