[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140120215151.GN31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:51:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:39:45PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > 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.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain what's wrong with:
static inline void mwait_idle(void)
{
local_irq_enable();
mwait_idle_with_hints(0, 0);
}
--
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