From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46796)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1eYTyQ-00020F-3v
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:44:07 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1eYTyN-0004Sj-1X
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:44:06 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59762)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1eYTyM-0004SW-Tz
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:44:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1eYTyM-0007b5-Ep
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:44:02 -0500
Subject: [bug#29810] gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on some
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.29810.B29810.151540463229180@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
References: <87r2rm29dy.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:43:45 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87r2rm29dy.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> (Dave Love's message
	of "Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:13:29 +0000")
Message-ID: <87zi5oit2m.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
Cc: 29810@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Dave,

Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> skribis:

> This addresses a potential performance problem, fixed in the post-0.2.20
> source.  It's intended for application to a package definition updated
> to 0.2.20, which Ludo said is in the pipeline.  Apologies that I don't
> seem to have converged on an acceptable style for changes.
>
>>>From 23ad3a438ef7bcd34e2354f6cbdede634f0188d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:48:29 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on s=
ome
>  x86_64.
>
> * gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Add-dummy-implementation-of-cpuid_count-f=
or-the-CPUI.patch,
> gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Use-cpuid-4-with-subleafs-to-query-L1-cache=
-size-on-.patch:
> New files.
> * gnu/packages/maths.scm (openblas)[source]: Use them.
> * gnu/local.mk: Register them.

Thanks for the patch.  Given the number of dependents, we would not push
it in master (info "(guix) Submitting Patches").  At the same time,
since 0.2.20 is in core-updates and well on its way, do you think we
should keep those patches?

Perhaps in core-updates we could keep both 0.2.19 with these patches and
0.2.20 (ISTR you said there were incompatibilities between these two
versions)?  Would it make sense?

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.