[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704031620510.3963@sheep.housecafe.de>
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