From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935773AbaH0SvL (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:51:11 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:35313 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935147AbaH0SvJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:51:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:50:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andi Kleen cc: peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, eranian@google.com, Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] perf, x86: Remove incorrect model number from Haswell perf In-Reply-To: <20140827163728.GQ4120@two.firstfloor.org> Message-ID: References: <1409006611-30741-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1409006611-30741-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <20140826212934.GP4120@two.firstfloor.org> <20140827163728.GQ4120@two.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:53:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Try again when you figured yourself out what number means what and why > > 71 is bogus. > > 71 is definitely not a Haswell, but a Broadwell. Fine. So the changelog should tell so. > However it was removed from the Broadwell patch based on Peter's > feedback. > > So technically the patch is not needed right now because there > would be no duplicates (unless 71 was readded), so the compiler > would not complain. It's very well technically needed simply because its not a haswell and if it's run on real model 71 hardware we'll get some interesting stuff to debug. > However it's still incorrect for Haswell, so I maintain removing > it is the right thing to do. I did not argue against the removal itself. That's fine and obviously correct if model 71 is not a haswell. All I want is a proper patch (1 line) and a proper changelog explaining WHY this is the right thing to do. Thanks, tglx