lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:39:45PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > > As a side note, at minimum the semantic and compatibility difference
> > > needs to be _very_ clearly present in the naming. Something like
> > > mwait_old_() or mwait_core2_(). That way such dependencies and
> > > assumptions don't get lost in code restructuring, etc.
> >
> > Agreed.
> > We started with mwait_idle() -- which was erroneously removed
> > and is now being restored under it original name.
> >
> > The "new" function is mwait_idle_with_hints() -- which uses the
> > additional hints that were not available w/ the original MWAIT
> > instruction. Where "new" is Core Duo and later -- all the
> > processor that can use MWAIT for C-states deeper than C1.
>
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what's wrong with:
>
> static inline void mwait_idle(void)
> {
> local_irq_enable();
> mwait_idle_with_hints(0, 0);
> }

Absolutely agreed, we don't want to carry it on 'just because', the
compatibility aspect needs to be documented - otherwise we degrade
into cargo cult programming.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-21 12:21    [W:0.103 / U:0.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site