From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753605AbaIJUjI (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:39:08 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:35974 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753578AbaIJUjF (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:39:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:38:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andi Kleen cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, eranian@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf, x86: Use INTEL_FLAGS_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT for PRECDIST In-Reply-To: <20140910140258.GI5387@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <1410310148-26260-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1410310148-26260-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <20140910075926.GM6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140910140258.GI5387@tassilo.jf.intel.com> 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, 10 Sep 2014, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:59:26AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:49:08PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > From: Andi Kleen > > > > > > The earlier commit 86a04461a made near all PEBS on > > > Sandy/IvyBridge/Haswell to reject non zero flags. > > > > What's magic about nehalem and westmere? > > I wasn't able to confirm their behavior explicitly, so I felt > it best to leave them alone. > > But in principle adding the _FLAGS changes there too would > make sense too. Can you please once in a while come up with a precise answer to a question instead of wrapping your internal knowledge into "in principle", "would" and other magic keywords? Thanks tglx