From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc <-> ThinkPads Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:33:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20061101193333.GC9085@mellanox.co.il> References: Reply-To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-pm@osdl.org, Ernst Herzberg , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Adrian Bunk , Martin Lorenz List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Quoting r. Linus Torvalds : > Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc <-> ThinkPads > = > = > = > On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Ok please revert the i386 patch for now then if it fixes the ThinkPads. = > > The x86-64 version should be probably fixed too, but doesn't cleanly. I= will = > > send you later a patch to fix this there properly. > = > Actually, I should have just fixed the ordering. I did some cleanups too, = > but those are unrelated (except in the sense that I wanted to look at the = > assembly code, and the cleanups made the code generation at least half-wa= y = > sane!) > = > I've pushed out the changes, but here is the part that may or may not = > matter for anybody who wants to test it if they don't use git or if it = > hasn't mirrored out yet. Michael? Martin? I pulled the latest git, and seems to work for me, thanks. This still could be a false negative (happened already) so I'll continue using this, and will post the results. > Andi: I think the patches should work pretty much as-is for x86-64 too, = > since all the issues would seem to be similar. = > = > I'm not entirely happy with "ioapic_write_entry()" now either (if we = > change an entry that was already unmasked, we should probably mask it = > first by writing the low word with the mask bit set, then write the high = > word, and then write the low word again), but = > = > - this makes us match the ordering we _used_ to have, so if the cleanup = > broke things for people, this should unbreak it, and at least not be = > any worse than it used to be. > = > - when we write new unmasked entries, they all _should_ have been masked = > before, so hopefully the "change a unmasked entry while it's unmasked" = > case doesn't actually ever happen. But I didn't actually _check_. > = > Somebody should look into that case. Does anybody feel like they want to = > learn more about the IO-APIC? Halloween is over and gone, but if you want = > to scare small children _next_ year, telling them about the IO-APIC is = > likely a good strategy. > = > Linus Hmm, sounds interesting :) Is this a good place to start (I'm feeling lucky hit for IO-APIC)? http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/290566.htm -- = MST