| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:26:37 +0100 (BST) From: Christian Kujau <christian@...ouse.de> To: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> cc: Christian Kujau <christian@...ouse.de>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> Subject: Re: 2.6.20.4: NETDEV WATCHDOG and lockups On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Robert Hancock wrote: > These days I think it's usually best to have ACPI on with current systems. Whooha, really? While I honor the acpi-folks' work when using a desktop machine I am otherwise always reminded to the comment in arch/i386/kernel/apm.c, which basically says: "write bios code, does it compile? does it boot win98? ->ship it" ;)) > Although it's not as bad with servers, many machines are designed to run only > Windows (which normally always uses ACPI) and simply aren't tested well or at > all with ACPI disabled so you can run into a lot of problems which are just > bugs in the BIOS, etc. I only thought it was the other way around: less (active, used) code - less bug (caused by strange ACPI implementations). But I can see your point. > Also, on the server side, if ACPI is disabled you can't take advantage of CPU > clock frequency scaling to save power. I'm happy to do this with the new cpufreq interface, but right now I could not care less about saving power :( Christian. -- BOFH excuse #305: IRQ-problems with the Un-Interruptible-Power-Supply - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists