linux-kernel - Re: [discuss] Linux 2.6.19-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

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]

Message-ID: <20061106173528.GQ5778@stusta.de>
Date:	Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:35:28 +0100
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Christian <christiand59@....de>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <alexey_y_starikovskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...ts.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [discuss] Linux 2.6.19-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 03:04:48PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 06:32:12PM +0100, Christian wrote:
>  > Am Freitag, 3. November 2006 16:56 schrieb Dave Jones:
>  > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:25:37AM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>  > >  > Could this be a problem?
>  > >  > --------------------
>  > >  > ...
>  > >  > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=m
>  > >  > ...
>  > >  > CONFIG_X86_POWERNOW_K8=y
>  > >
>  > > Hmm, possibly.  Christian, does it work again if you set them both to =y ?
>  > 
>  > Yes, it works now! Only the change to CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=y made it work 
>  > again!
> 
> So, the reasoning behind this, is that we have this construct..
> 
> config X86_POWERNOW_K8_ACPI
>     bool
>     depends on X86_POWERNOW_K8 && ACPI_PROCESSOR
>     depends on !(X86_POWERNOW_K8 = y && ACPI_PROCESSOR = m)
>     default y
> 
> 
> Which makes us use the ACPI stuff if it's there, otherwise not,
> and in your case, it seems your system _needs_ this enabled
> to make powernow work.
> 
> Thing is, this was there in 2.6.18 too, so strictly speaking,
> we haven't regressed here, and you're getting exactly what you asked for.
> The problem is that it's completely silent as to why it then fails.
> 
> I'm open to improvements, but I'm not sure what the right thing to do
> here is.. opinions ?

The extreme solution would be

config X86_POWERNOW_K8
        tristate "AMD Opteron/Athlon64 PowerNow!"
        select CPU_FREQ_TABLE
        depends ACPI_PROCESSOR

A medium solution might be

config X86_POWERNOW_K8
        tristate "AMD Opteron/Athlon64 PowerNow!"
        select CPU_FREQ_TABLE
	depends (ACPI_PROCESSOR || ACPI_PROCESSOR=n)

But in the end, the best solution depends on how many percent of the 
X86_POWERNOW_K8 users have Christian's problem of requiring 
ACPI_PROCESSOR. If there are only very few people with this problem, I'd 
say leave it as it is.

> 	Dave

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/