[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47781499.5010209@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:58:49 +0100
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
dpreed@...d.com, Islam Amer <pharon@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override
On 30-12-07 22:44, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>
>>> It probably should actually HLT, to avoid sucking power, and
>>> stressing the thermal system. We're dead at this point, and the
>>> early 486's which had problems with HLT will lock up - we don't care.
>>
>> ok. Like the patch below?
>>
>
> Don't need the cli; we're already running with interrupts disabled.
>
> I'd do:
>
> while (1)
> asm volatile("hlt");
>
> ... mostly on general principles.
At least with current GCC the volatile isn't strictly needed as its implied
without output operands but I was only certain after checking that. Do you
remember if that used to be different for previous GCC versions? I tend to
also stick volatiles on them still...
Rene.
--
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