[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKmF0Bzo+=VRD=3dZKVZAxAQ=am33fFGR7XH4hYd2=9Mww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:39:45 -0500
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
> As a side note, at minimum the semantic and compatibility difference
> needs to be _very_ clearly present in the naming. Something like
> mwait_old_() or mwait_core2_(). That way such dependencies and
> assumptions don't get lost in code restructuring, etc.
Agreed.
We started with mwait_idle() -- which was erroneously removed
and is now being restored under it original name.
The "new" function is mwait_idle_with_hints() -- which uses
the additional hints that were not available w/ the original MWAIT instruction.
Where "new" is Core Duo and later -- all the processor that can use
MWAIT for C-states deeper than C1.
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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