* Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > v2: > > > Use new ack sequence unconditionally. Remove pmu reset code. > > > > So this is not something we can easily revert if things go bad. Esp. > > since you build on it with the next patches. > > Ok, and?
Sigh, you are being disruptive again. > You want me to go back to the previous patch? That one is easily > undoable (just disable the flag for the model) > > Another alternative would be to fork the PMI handler into a new and > an old version, that is switchable. Here you pretend that you didn't read the sane solution that was suggested to you just three days ago: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151019070812.gb17...@gmail.com " > > Ingo, do you want to first merge the safe patch and then clean up? > > Yeah, would be nice to structure it that way, out of general paranoia. " I.e. first apply the safe approach, then, after the dependent changes, clean it up by introducing the dangerous change. The thing is, I'm close to summarily NAK-ing any patches from you to the perf subsystem, due to the unacceptably low quality patches combined with obtuse passive-aggressive obstruction you are routinely burdening maintainers with. Btw., I noticed that you routinely don't Cc me to perf patches. Please always Cc: me to perf patches (both kernel and tooling patches). I still will not apply them directly, only if another perf maintainer signs off on them, but I'd like to have a record of all your submissions. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
