[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060910213440.GA9412@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:34:40 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>, akpm@...l.org,
torvalds@...l.org, sergio@...giomb.no-ip.org, jeff@...zik.org,
cw@...f.org, bjorn.helgaas@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
harmon@....edu, len.brown@...el.com, vsu@...linux.ru,
liste@...det.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] VIA IRQ quirk behaviour change
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 05:30:18PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> Sorry, all I have is anecdotal evidence. The scope of the problem isn't
> fully known. Could be related to vendors implementing ACPI using SMM.
> Vendors are tight lipped about which hardware is affected because it
> understandably annoys users.
I don't know what you really mean by "implementing ACPI" here. Certain
queries may generate SMM traps, but I haven't seen any event driven code
paths that do[1]. If you're polling hardware you may generate some
latency, but I don't think that's any great surprise.
It would be interesting to have a test case under Linux so we could
attempt to figure out whether it's an actual problem, or just Windows
doing awkward things.
[1] outside sort of obvious stuff like ripping out a hotswap bay and
/potentially/ critical battery status to switch on a warning light, but
if you hit those situations you're probably pretty much dead anyway
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
-
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