linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86 idle APM: delete 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, 28 Jul 2012 11:11:48 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86 idle APM: delete apm_cpu_idle()

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:42:53 -0400
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:

> From: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> 
> The APM idle feature to call into the BIOS
> is known to break some machines, and it has dubious benefit
> on the (decades old) machines it doesn't break.

You mean "doesn't fit my current plan" I think. I see almost no bugzilla
APM reports. It's been solid for years.

It makes a big difference on older systems as it drops the clock. If we
are going to drop this we should probaly also drop APM support entirely
and 386/486 support.

If not IMHO it should stay. Various embedded platforms are still using
ancient hardware setups.

This is a small stable piece of code that has required no maintainance in
years

Furthermore we have a feature removal process. Mark it down to be removed
in July 2013 if there are no objections, and then wait as per proper
process.

NAK

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/