From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] acpi_pm.c: check for monotonicity Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:28:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20080818132858.b844a1d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080818200017.GA11247@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20080810101730.GA10024@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20080810162920.GA9860@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> <20080810190759.GA1879@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20080818190325.GA12581@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> <20080818121924.6b61f7af.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080818193517.GA22097@isilmar.linta.de> <20080818124755.162f24d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080818200916.GA18209@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> <20080818201115.GC18209@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> <20080818201844.GA3506@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52138 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757863AbYHRU37 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:29:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080818201844.GA3506@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux@dominikbrodowski.net, andi@lisas.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, arjan@infradead.org On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:18:44 +0200 Andreas Mohr wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:15PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > + if (good != 10) { > > + printk(KERN_INFO "PM-Timer had no reasonable result:" > > + " 0x%#llx - aborting.\n", value1); > > + return -ENODEV; > > } > > - printk(KERN_INFO "PM-Timer had no reasonable result:" > > - " 0x%#llx - aborting.\n", value1); > > - return -ENODEV; > > Technically spoken this log message could now be considered partially > outdated... (we're doing 10 evaluations after all, not one with a > precise end result). > > > Seeing a define for those several open-coded 10 loops values would be nice. > Also it's a bit dodgy printing a cycle_t with %llx. We don't _know_ that cycle_t was implemented with `long long' - if this was always true, we wouldn't (or shouldn't) have a cycle_t at all. But it seems that it happens to work for all architectures which implement acpi.