On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > Why do you need to replace the whole table? >> > >> Because I am extending them with one or two events based on cpu >> model. That was the easiest way of doing this instead of playing >> some kind of malloc+copy trick. > > I did malloc and copy. > >> >> > BTW I still think my approach in the v4 Haswell patchkit >> > is simpler and didn't rely on hardcoding these events. >> > >> I don't care about those events. As I found out, they are not even >> used by perf because they are all hardcoded and that's what gets >> used. I assume they are exposed for reference only. I don't object >> to that. But I think the right mechanism would be one where you >> can add events at boot time based on CPU model. It could be used >> to add the common events as well in the common part of the init >> code. > > Yes that's what I did. > > I don't think copying everything for everything new is a good > approach. > I agree. I did that because it was the easiest thing I could think of. Discovered I had to deal with all of this just two days ago when I rebased. Wasn't too happy to have to deal with this at the last minute.
In any case, if you have something, then looks like I need to wait until it's in before I can adjust this patch set. > -Andi > > -- > a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- 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/
