[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905150031.57731.elendil@planet.nl>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:31:54 +0200
From: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Janne Kulmala <janne.t.kulmala@....fi>,
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 Thursday 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().
[...]
> @@ -603,6 +602,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct
> acpi_processor *pr)
> acpi_timer_check_state(i, pr, cx);
> break;
> }
>+ if (cx->valid)
>+ tsc_check_state(cx->type);
>
> if (cx->valid)
> working++;
Shouldn't those last two ifs not simply be combined?
Hmm. I guess not if tsc_check_state can change cx->valid, but that might
be worth a comment.
But even with that I'll give the patch a try tomorrow.
Cheers,
FJP
--
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