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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 BFA0EC43387 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A941206BB for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="sqCdiWCv" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728873AbfAHOoN (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2019 09:44:13 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:36676 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728112AbfAHOoN (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2019 09:44:13 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=4wcuvmObQQi5uBx88ezgqVJU7jIWyHzNJ6ph05KqzHc=; b=sqCdiWCvjEuY/NH8UzfUHnHuT lNMNbY5WGJP5rG4k8aRLV9ev6hZxDJf7lkhNfXvv/Q3J3Xph5DobOD2IFobTA0SbvB9Z/24SY5z5j rTdyQQtfBpwttZ43avK8UKthrGXE14uxqQnjxdtdajD2O6oVw4wWoM44oJaVZQe9tW9AGKbxVmBX7 rmbzbRP/GLd9rNyHQZaokJjK4FmSiJn4O4y+2X6KHoDDG/0O/bUiMIa/zkOrU2/IaHQF92PnmHhHW LJsJG2DNzbFX/ZgItI9sK1/ZPWiaeTBwGQymZJ6vD6HiOw+MulUmrvtVgAbSGv+1oJu2FW8RicprU Ib/RRtQ4A==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ggsbg-0002GI-T3; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 14:43:53 +0000 Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F04AB20297BAD; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:43:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:43:50 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Andrew Murray Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Shawn Guo , Sascha Hauer , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Russell King , suzuki.poulose@arm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, Michael Ellerman , x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] arm: perf: conditionally use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE Message-ID: <20190108144350.GA30894@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> 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> <20190108131357.GF56789@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190108131357.GF56789@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:13:57PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote: > 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. Could you maybe include it in the relevant patches too; like for example the ARM one where we rely on set_event_filter() to DTRT. So with the changelogs and subjects fixed I can take these patches and then you can get on with cleaning up the individual drivers.