lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/18] 2.6.40: x86 idle APM: remove deprecated apm_cpu_idle()
> > There is some doubt whether the APM idle feature
> > to call into the BIOS from the idle loop is reliable.
> > Certainly it was known to fail on some machines,
>
> And it was known to work on lots - a point that despite repeated
> reminding you seem keen to ignore.
>
> The fundamental problem I have with this patch set is this
>
> You've provided no architectural overall justification for all this
> effort. What is the big picture around your crusade here ? What is the
> grand plan ?

This patch series was posted in reply to a table of contents

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/2/8

"By the end of this series, pm_idle is removed as a public
x86 idle-loop registration mechanism. A few other things are
cleaned up in the process."

I labeled it "idle cleanup - v3" -- I'm sorry if it went un-noticed
because I neglected to put the [PATCH 0/18] on it.

Trinabh also replied to you, pointing one of the previous
LKML discussions about the mis-use of pm_idle.

> > but more importantly, APM machines have not shipped
> > for a decade and so finding machines to test the code
> > is problematic.
>
> So don't test it - if it's wrong someone will let you know, believe me 8)
>
> And 2.6.40 is far too soon - it takes about a year for stuff to rattle
> through to leading edge distro users in bulk

If you insist.

We'll create a new APM cpuidle driver in Linux (Trinabh prototyped one),
and at the same time, schedule it for removal in a year. Personally,
I think it is make-work, and in real-life it is more likely to do
more harm than removing apm_idle, but I don't want to stand in the
way of process.

thanks,
-Len



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-02 21:47    [W:0.067 / U:8.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site