From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] x86, ACPI: default to reboot via ACPI (again) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:55:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4916B38B.7050905@redhat.com> References: <007e7d616a5d1c2e16ad627d03f8b97799445e71.1226032943.git.len.brown@intel.com> <200811080930.21462.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <200811081050.25477.arvidjaar@mail.ru> <20081108115956.GE8354@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:41463 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752470AbYKIJzu (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Nov 2008 04:55:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081108115956.GE8354@elte.hu> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrey Borzenkov , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Eduardo Habkost , Andrew Morton Ingo Molnar wrote: > Len, please consider my Lenovo T60 laptop "possibly affected" too. I > was seeing weird sporadic reboot hangs which went away roughly since > around that revert. > > Given that Windows uses ACPI reboot, I find it unlikely that it is so unreliable. Maybe some other problem in the tree got fixed? > So the negative scope of the change, even after such short amount of > testing, is non-trivial, and we simply have to go via a flag day date > approach. Or, if these bugs are debuggable, make the ACPI reboot > sequence more reliable. I think the sequence should be acpi -> kbd -> triple fault. Given that Windows uses ACPI, the number of machines that support it is much larger (and growing daily) than the number of machines that do not. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function