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 884CDC43387 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505A3206BB for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:11:34 +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="kPtcD0BO" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728113AbfAHNLd (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2019 08:11:33 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:50100 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726129AbfAHNLd (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2019 08:11:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.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=RH/5lh2hI9xb1gFqv9RkB8AxW7I9vax/KHqnXcNAOZ0=; b=kPtcD0BOgYYx4w3+uLkJOFHfY aPy3Z9tsHajOvgIPDjACd9fLvlpcz86AAU9NX/b3MetRNl/II9/ZfJtmxMsaR4Ojbs0BKHu7aFPuh 3GMH7jfC34bUOu+7k9/d70/8bjbyfIrD5dKQCQIhltSctV9MAu1tS44ksuQYrEpPBU3LaoKpTZjBU LLsHcmtnbXLemCSvNswgS3sSMho8SXIzG77q4cqfhpXwyI/T+EYtMTaS/rHqSmHlfrrvAcf9aEXww bcD9PnSs51+qndEegxOlVTNxWBpFEF2PHmf0/l3sH4sqS3QS4wQj1L7cmlrD4rTMiX7hocuqIOboo zIe48jn+Q==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ggr9O-0006v4-6L; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 13:10:34 +0000 Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 837B82019FEBB; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:10:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:10:31 +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: <20190108131031.GG6808@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190108130740.GC56789@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 01:07:41PM +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.