[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110331092721.GA16570@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:27:21 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86 idle: remove NOP cpuinfo_x86.hlt_works_ok flag
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > Do we know whether a distro adds this to the boot line? Do we know about users
> > relying on it.
>
> I certainly had hardware that needed it. Don't any more but this is more
> trying to rip out stuff without letting nature take its course.
>
> It's a trivial feature item.
Yes.
> > > Do we really need both?
> >
> > Probably not, as i said i do not disagree - i just think it should be more
> > explicit. Make it a: "users of CPU models X beware" commit title, not 'remove
> > inactive code' ...
>
> Just make the one config variable respond to both boot configuration
> options. The parser is __init code anyway so discarded so the actual code
> cost of compatibility is exactly NIL.
Yeah, agreed.
Btw., we used to auto-detect broken HLT systems IIRC - but that got lost
already. We should at least honor the boot parameter.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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