On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 18:06:36 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
On 08/12/2016 09:33 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> It really doesn't belong to the generic CPU driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> src/cpu/cpu_x86.c | 16 ++--------------
> src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
Hmm... interesting is this something that the online perf add more stats
will need to also adjust, see (8/8):
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-August/msg00209.html
It doesn't seem so, but since I recognized the acronyms I figured I'd
check...
The support for perf events is advertised by CMT CPU feature (and a few
others), but otherwise the parts of our code dealing with CPU features
and perf events are unrelated. There's no need to adjust anything in the
perf events code.
So here we are again at a summary - if I didn't comment on
something
consider it an implicit ACK.
There's a couple of reviews that are simple and ACK'able - I think
they're obvious.
However, there's also a couple where I'm just looking for information. I
have no reason to not ACK, just wanted some clarity. I don't necessarily
need to see a whole new series. I think it just the interaction noted
in patch 40, 35, and 26 (update and compare callbacks).
So after my replies to your comments, do you want me to resend any
patches from the series? I think the best option is to resend them all
and mark all unchanged patches so that reviewers do not need to look at
them again, but it's going to be a series of 45 patches.
Anyway, thanks for the review, I can imagine going through so many
patches to the ugly CPU code was not easy. But I think the code is
going to get better thanks to the patches :-)
Jirka