From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yakui_zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Disable _GTS and _BFS support by default Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:55:49 +0800 Message-ID: <1240275349.3638.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200904201101.07693.trenn@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:13458 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752890AbZDUAyj (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:54:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200904201101.07693.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Renninger Cc: Len Brown , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "jm@lentin.co.uk" On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 17:01 +0800, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Saturday 18 April 2009 05:51:42 Len Brown wrote: > > From: Len Brown > > > > Executing BIOS code paths not exercised by Windows > > tends to get Linux into trouble. > Where do we know Windows does not use them? > Is that confirmed by a Windows developer or has this been > tried with KVM? > For the latter, it could be that these are only called under > certain circumstances. It is tested by using KVM. And this is tested on windows XP/Vista. IMO this should be consistent with the native windows. > > > However, if a system does benefit from _GTS or _BFS, > > acpi.gts=1 an acpi.bfs=1 are now available to enable them. > If the systems works better it's probably a good idea to add > that patch, I'd just like to know how sure we can be that > Windows never calls these. > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13041 >