[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140121104721.GB4105@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:47:21 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...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
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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);
> }
Absolutely agreed, we don't want to carry it on 'just because', the
compatibility aspect needs to be documented - otherwise we degrade
into cargo cult programming.
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