Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:00:30 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "mingo@elte.hu" <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: fix IMC missing box initialization
Message-ID: <20150511100030.GA15166@gmail.com>
References: <20150423054738.GA3722@thinkpad>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504240935110.20357@vincent-weaver-1.umelst.maine.edu>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504241001040.20552@vincent-weaver-1.umelst.maine.edu>
 <CABPqkBTOvanYOG0JV9N7CywWYEycguRF74ckL46=qof1TxqKzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAErSpo7Ah0bgMpG0yWZ4LdZ215i0nsZrFao0e3sDhjOQ95Sk1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABPqkBSjXkZtBd_ArrwGpnEvynAnCJo5N8Bd+P4Rg=Y81agvxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150425043817.GM13605@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077017EDC4C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20150428105243.GV23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150428105243.GV23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1047
Lines: 33


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 03:43:32AM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > > This leads me to believe that this patch:
> > > >
> > > > commit c05199e5a57a579fea1e8fa65e2b511ceb524ffc
> > > > Author: Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>
> > > > Date:   Tue Jan 20 04:54:25 2015 +0000
> > > >
> > > >     perf/x86/intel/uncore: Move uncore_box_init() out of driver
> > > initialization
> > > >
> > > > If I revert it, I bet things will work again.
> > >
> > > Yes the initialization needs to be moved out of the IPI context.
> 
> I'm for the clean revert I think. Crashing is bad, but hiding/delaying
> it seems counter productive too, it'll just mean we'll only learn about
> it later.

So should I revert c05199e5a57a, with a Cc: stable?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/