Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:35:09 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> ,, 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 > idiotic". > > 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 > cafeteria)
Ok, fully agreed, and i've changed the code to "detect the BIOS breakage, warn about it but otherwise ignore the BIOS".
Thanks,
Ingo
| |