On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:53:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Try again when you figured yourself out what number means what and why
> > 71 is bogus.
>
> 71 is definitely not a Haswell, but a Broadwell.
Fine. So the changelog should tell so.
> However it was removed from the Broadwell patch based on Peter's
> feedback.
>
> So technically the patch is not needed right now because there
> would be no duplicates (unless 71 was readded), so the compiler
> would not complain.
It's very well technically needed simply because its not a haswell and
if it's run on real model 71 hardware we'll get some interesting stuff
to debug.
> However it's still incorrect for Haswell, so I maintain removing
> it is the right thing to do.
I did not argue against the removal itself. That's fine and obviously
correct if model 71 is not a haswell. All I want is a proper patch (1
line) and a proper changelog explaining WHY this is the right thing to
do.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
