[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17321.1306210686@localhost>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 00:18:06 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Youquan Song <youquan.song@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Youquan Song <youquan.song@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david.woodhouse@...el.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, hpa@...ux.intel.com, allen.m.kay@...el.com,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, rajesh.sankaran@...el.com,
asit.k.mallick@...el.com, kent.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86, vt-d: enable x2apic opt out
On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:36:14 EDT, Youquan Song said:
> > If we're doing a WARN level here, what are the downsides of just automagically
> > forcing it rather than making them use a kernel parameter and reboot?
>
> As we have discussed before, x2apci opt out feature is requested from OEM that
> they want to firmware tell OS to opt out x2apic when the platform,
> hardware or BIOS is not ready to support x2apic. So we can not reboot or
> force to use kernel parameter.
Do we want an actual WARN there, complete with stack traceback and all?
Or did you intend a pr_warn or printk(KERN_WARNING or similar?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists