Re: [PATCH V4 2/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: correct fixed counter index check for NHM

2018-01-14 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > From: Kan Liang > > For Nehalem and Westmere, there is only one fixed counter for W-Box. > There is no index which is bigger than UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED. > It is not correct to use >= to check fixed counter. > The code quality

Re: [PATCH V4 2/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: correct fixed counter index check for NHM

2018-01-14 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, kan.li...@intel.com wrote: > From: Kan Liang > > For Nehalem and Westmere, there is only one fixed counter for W-Box. > There is no index which is bigger than UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED. > It is not correct to use >= to check fixed counter. > The code quality issue will bring

[PATCH V4 2/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: correct fixed counter index check for NHM

2017-11-02 Thread kan . liang
From: Kan Liang For Nehalem and Westmere, there is only one fixed counter for W-Box. There is no index which is bigger than UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED. It is not correct to use >= to check fixed counter. The code quality issue will bring problem when new counter index is

[PATCH V4 2/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: correct fixed counter index check for NHM

2017-11-02 Thread kan . liang
From: Kan Liang For Nehalem and Westmere, there is only one fixed counter for W-Box. There is no index which is bigger than UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED. It is not correct to use >= to check fixed counter. The code quality issue will bring problem when new counter index is introduced. Signed-off-by: