[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905150025030.3561@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:27:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
cc: Janne Kulmala <janne.t.kulmala@....fi>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, johnstul@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: idle: fix init-time TSC check regression
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Len Brown wrote:
> From: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
>
> A previous 2.6.30 patch, a71e4917dc0ebbcb5a0ecb7ca3486643c1c9a6e2,
> (ACPI: idle: mark_tsc_unstable() at init-time, not run-time)
> erroneously disabled the TSC on systems that did not actually
> have valid deep C-states.
>
> Move the check after the deep-C-states are validated,
> via new helper, tsc_check_state(), hich replaces tsc_halts_in_c().
>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
> ---
> Thomas,
> I decided to use a tsc-specific helper
> rather than piggyback on acpi_timer_check_state(),
> since that is not general, but rather LAPIC timer specific.
> (and I'll re-name that to reflect its specific function
> in a cosmetic follow-up patch)
I have no strong opinion on that :)
> + if (cx->valid)
> + tsc_check_state(cx->type);
>
> if (cx->valid)
> working++;
Could do with
if (cx->valid) {
tsc_check_state(cx->type);
working++;
}
Otherwise Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
--
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