On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 11:51:17PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm a suitable person for reviewing your patch, but I
> tested this patchset for perf bench with your latest (v2) patchset for
> x86 alternatives. It looks good to me.
> Reviewed-by: Hitoshi Mitake
Thanks a lot, I'll a
Hi Borislav,
At Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:13:38 +0100,
Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> So this alternatives patchset breaks perf bench mem, here are a couple
> of patches ontop, you guys tell me whether it makes sense. I wanted to
> make it run all memset/memcpy routines so here are a couple o
Hi all,
So this alternatives patchset breaks perf bench mem, here are a couple
of patches ontop, you guys tell me whether it makes sense. I wanted to
make it run all memset/memcpy routines so here are a couple of patches
which do this:
./perf bench mem memset -l 20MB -r all
# Running 'mem/memset'
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov
>
> [ Changelog is in version-increasing number so that one can follow the
> evolution of the patch set in a more natural way (i.e., latest version
> comes at the end. ]
>
> v0:
>
> this is something which h
From: Borislav Petkov
[ Changelog is in version-increasing number so that one can follow the
evolution of the patch set in a more natural way (i.e., latest version
comes at the end. ]
v0:
this is something which hpa and I talked about recently: the ability for
the alternatives code to
5 matches
Mail list logo
