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:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:10:31 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        robin.murphy@arm.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] arm: perf: conditionally use
 PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE
Message-ID: <20190108131031.GG6808@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1546878450-20341-1-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com>
 <1546878450-20341-6-git-send-email-andrew.murray@arm.com>
 <20190108102802.GC6808@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190108130740.GC56789@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190108130740.GC56789@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:07:41PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:

> Yes I found lots of examples like this across the tree whilst doing this
> work. However I decided to initially start with simply removing duplicated
> code as a result of adding this flag and attempting to preserve existing
> functionality. I thought that if I add missing checks then the patchset
> will get much bigger and be harder to merge. I would like to do this though
> as another non-cross-arch series.
> 
> Can we limit this patch series to the minimal changes required to fully
> use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE and then attempt to fix these existing problems
> in subsequent patch sets?

Ok, but it would've been nice to see that mentioned somewhere.