From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750932AbdAWKOf (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 05:14:35 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:38525 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750708AbdAWKOd (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 05:14:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:47:44 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: David Carrillo-Cisneros cc: Vikas Shivappa , Vikas Shivappa , Stephane Eranian , linux-kernel , x86 , hpa@zytor.com, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Shankar, Ravi V" , "Luck, Tony" , Fenghua Yu , andi.kleen@intel.com, "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Cqm2: Intel Cache quality monitoring fixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1484879563-29977-1-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:29 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Can you please write up in a abstract way what the design requirements are > > that you need. So far we are talking about implementation details and > > unspecfied wishlists, but what we really need is an abstract requirement. > > My pleasure: > > > Design Proposal for Monitoring of RDT Allocation Groups. I was asking for requirements, not a design proposal. In order to make a design you need a requirements specification. So again: Can please everyone involved write up their specific requirements for CQM and stop spamming us with half baken design proposals? And I mean abstract requirements and not again something which is referring to existing crap or some desired crap. The complete list of requirements has to be agreed on before we talk about anything else. Thanks, tglx