Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-192969-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240525152927.665498-1-irogers@google.com> <CAHk-=wgYxi_+Q1OpZKg2F9=eem7VQjYnoqN6sA1+uUt-0JqQKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wi5Ri=yR2jBVk-4HzTzpoAWOgstr1LEvg_-OXtJvXXJOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240527105842.GB33806@debian-dev> <CAP-5=fXfidyF_e=yMNi26ScgY-VbJPfxN8M7OiK9ELa3qTfXPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgcoODsCbba423uZwQqOjJ8r29GZyCd472K6L6Dt-NbPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-5=fUp+gSoLC90vT50X7So_SyAC9OprAMvh_Jj_8NTuO6j_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiDheOd3pdZ4vdLwrMbbVs3LUcSD=afASEWbND-HZhuPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-5=fVGF6A7fwZyF8o0Sz5nNhtXb0007JoCxaiL2XHCKS3=0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fVGF6A7fwZyF8o0Sz5nNhtXb0007JoCxaiL2XHCKS3=0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 12:42:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh2yboV-UtCO_NFV2TsbbMeHTw0Fqn4rnovbGQzkZLCJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf evlist: Force adding default events only to core PMUs
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linux.dev>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>, 
	James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>, Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>, 
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 11:59, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
>
> But nobody else ever reported the issue, even ARM who maintain the PMU
> driver whose event name conflicts. This hasn't been a problem for
> anybody else.

I'm not blaming you for having had a bug.

I'm blaming you for NOT DEALING WITH THE BUG APPROPRIATELY.

I reported the bug and bisected it four days ago.

Taking some time to fix the bug is fine.

But that's not what you've been doing.

Since then, pretty much ALL you have done is argue about irrelevant
thingas that weren't about the regression in question.

The fact that you still don't agree, having broken documented
behavior, and still argue against just having it fixed, I can't do
anything about.

> So I think the revert is a real regression for a larger user base.

I didn't have much choice, did I? You refuse to even acknowledge the
bug I hit. I'd have been happy if you had just fixed the bug. You
didn't.  You just argued.

> There is a testing issue here, not least I don't possess an Apple ARM
> machine.

This is not an Apple ARM machine. I have one of those too, but this
isn't it. It's an Ampere Computing system, based on an ARM Neoverse N1
(and the ARM PMU's both for the core and for the interconnect).

But that is pretty much irrelevant by now.

The issue is that you don't fix bugs you leave behind, forcing the revert.

I'm happy to test any patches. But I'm done arguing. The "cycles"
thing needs to work. This is not a "pretty please".

This is a "if you can't understand that and acknowledge that without
arguing, just work on something else, ok?"

                  Linus