On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 16:18 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 03:12:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 15:54 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > Isn't it better to introduce mapping between ebx bits and architectural > > > events and do for_each_set_bit loop? > > > > Probably, but I only thought of that halfway through ;-) > > > > > But I wouldn't want to introduce > > > patch as below as part of this series. > > > > Well, since you're actually going to frob cpuid10.ebx bits we had better > > deal with it properly. > OK. We need to figure what is the proper way though. How about me > introducing cpuid10_ebx with event_mask bitmask, mapping array, but > not disabling events for now. Ah, only now that you pointed our those bits are in fact inverted do I realize you propagate the workaround. So by clearing it you say the event is supported. OK. maybe we should change the names of the split to reflect their inverted nature, although I'm clean out of ideas atm. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
