lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [kernel] Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU time
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Philipp Rumpf wrote:

> > Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What am I
> > missing?
>
> apm_bios_call must not be called with two identical pointers for
> two different registers.
>

OK, my bad... By replacing the call I made with this:

u32 dummy, a, b, c, d;

if (apm_bios_call(APM_FUNC_IDLE, 0, 0, &dummy, &a, &b, &c, &d))
return 0;

then the situation is back to "normal"...

Just one more thing though: in apm_bios_call_simple():

[...]
APM_DO_SAVE_SEGS;
{
int cx, dx, si;
[...]

Aren't cx, dx and si really meant to be u32?

--
Francis Galiegue, fg@mandrakesoft.com - Normand et fier de l'être
"Programming is a race between programmers, who try and make more and more
idiot-proof software, and universe, which produces more and more remarkable
idiots. Until now, universe leads the race" -- R. Cook

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.034 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site