linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/18] 2.6.40: x86 idle APM: remove deprecated apm_cpu

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:40:54 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] 2.6.40: x86 idle APM: remove deprecated
 apm_cpu_idle()

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:22:58 -0400
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:

> From: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> 
> 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 ?

> 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

Alan

--
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/