Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:45:01 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
        gavin.hindman@intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: Fix lack of coordination
 with perf
In-Reply-To: <0497d8a4-2dc8-3dca-28bd-58c5f6489218@intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810032144120.27796@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <cover.1537377064.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com> <20180920141150.GY24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <77383a1e-f343-7529-24cf-874f0999507d@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809272123440.8118@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20180928065830.GE3439@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <42c2b375-dbb9-11a3-8e2f-bec744e73b10@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809291954310.1432@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <0497d8a4-2dc8-3dca-28bd-58c5f6489218@intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 9/29/2018 10:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Reinette,
> > 
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> I interpreted Thomas and Peter's responses to mean that there are no
> >> objections for this to be included in v4.19 as a fix.
> >>
> >> If I understand the tip branches correctly the core patch seems to be
> >> headed to v4.19 while the rest (excluding the final patch
> >> "x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements") are headed to v4.20.
> >>
> >> Have you decided against including this into v4.19 or did I
> >> misunderstand the responses and/or branches?
> > 
> > I did not decide anything yet. It's not going into -rc6 as it's not yet
> > through next and the other standard testing.
> > 
> > I'm also looking at the other set of RDT fixes, which obviously want to go
> > as well. So not sure how to deal with all of that.
> > 
> 
> When you do deal with this series could you please also include the
> final patch ("x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements")? I
> noticed that patches 1/6 to 5/6 have been merged into x86/cache in
> tip.git and then some other work on top of it. It is not clear to me why
> 6/6 was omitted and this fix does require it.

Hmm. That was not intentional. /me goes to rumage around.

Thanks,

	tglx