[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andi Kleen <> wrote:
> The "if anyone else uses the PMU throw in your toys and sulk" check was
> only recently added.

,, and I'd like to point out that we should just say "screw the
f*cking BIOS, it's doing things wrong". And then just take over the
PMU events, and make sure that they aren't routed to SCI. Instead of
the current "ok, roll over and die when the BIOS does something

People continuously claim that the BIOS really needs it, and I have
never EVER seen any good explanation of why that particular sh*t
argument would b true. It seems to be purely about politics, where
some idiotic vendor (namely HP) has convinced Intel that they really
need it. To the point where some engineers seem to have bought into
the whole thing and actually believe that fairy tale ("firmware can do
better" - hah! They must be feeding people some bad drugs at the


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-25 00:29    [W:0.104 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site