From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hartwig Felger Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI poweroff fixes for 2.4.26-pre2 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:53:38 +0100 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <200403260953.46691.liste@hgfelger.de> References: <20040309233325.GA22953@alpha.home.local> <20040325230037.GK2179@elf.ucw.cz> <20040326055547.GA26599@alpha.home.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040326055547.GA26599-HkMpAodKYdnXX8ko2wsARw@public.gmane.org> Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Willy Tarreau , Pavel Machek Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Salut Willy, Pavel and S=E9rgio, I have a problem coming through on this list, altough I am subscribed... Am Freitag, 26. M=E4rz 2004 06:55 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > >... > > IIRC there was patch that made acpi_system_save_state() do nothing at > > all if !CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP. I'm arguing thats very wrong. > > I 100% agree that it's dirty to call a fake function instead of not > calling it at all. Indeed, one of my proposed patches removed the > dependency on CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP through a simple replacement of > acpi_system_save_state() with two calls to pm_send_all() which does > not depend on CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP. I believe it was cleaner, but it's > not what is included in BK right now... Here it is for reference. The regression started with the vanilla-kernels 2.4.25 and 2.6.3, and did n= ot=20 happen with the versions 2.4.24 and 2.6.2. So I started to look at the differences and found out, that reverting this = 3=20 lines did revert the regression. I did not try to understand, what I did. Andy Kleen started recently a new thread "Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] Handle disable= d=20 local apic better" that made me think... I compiled a vanilla 2.6.4 (withou= t=20 my patch, and with APIC disabled in config), et voila, everything is happy= =20 again. So we need not to look at my patch. I think it would be better to drive=20 forward Andy's work on handling APIC-disable in a correct manner. Thanks for your discussion ;-) http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2183 Cheers hartwig felger Hartwig Felger informatics =2D --=20 1024D/339FD693 Hartwig Felger Key fingerprint =3D FB2F 3EE9 345A D55B 6FF2 0EC1 F5B0 684F 339F D693 =46or the pulic keys, please visit my page. =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAY++Y9bBoTzOf1pMRAupCAKCSRV0jjisoVYqqn3M17tQgtCMEEwCbBISe HeQ2UNdvEbmqSkj4v9T/w3o=3D =3DkBdT =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click