Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751128AbWIJVe5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:34:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751123AbWIJVe4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:34:56 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:17063 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751128AbWIJVe4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:34:56 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:34:40 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Lee Revell Cc: Greg KH , Alan Cox , Daniel Drake , akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, sergio@sergiomb.no-ip.org, jeff@garzik.org, cw@f00f.org, bjorn.helgaas@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, harmon@ksu.edu, len.brown@intel.com, vsu@altlinux.ru, liste@jordet.net Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] VIA IRQ quirk behaviour change Message-ID: <20060910213440.GA9412@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20060907223313.1770B7B40A0@zog.reactivated.net> <1157811641.6877.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4502D35E.8020802@gentoo.org> <1157817836.6877.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45033370.8040005@gentoo.org> <1157848272.6877.108.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060910002112.GA20672@kroah.com> <1157913647.5076.174.camel@mindpipe> <20060910204516.GA9036@srcf.ucam.org> <1157923819.5076.185.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1157923819.5076.185.camel@mindpipe> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on vavatch.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1242 Lines: 27 On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 05:30:18PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > Sorry, all I have is anecdotal evidence. The scope of the problem isn't > fully known. Could be related to vendors implementing ACPI using SMM. > Vendors are tight lipped about which hardware is affected because it > understandably annoys users. I don't know what you really mean by "implementing ACPI" here. Certain queries may generate SMM traps, but I haven't seen any event driven code paths that do[1]. If you're polling hardware you may generate some latency, but I don't think that's any great surprise. It would be interesting to have a test case under Linux so we could attempt to figure out whether it's an actual problem, or just Windows doing awkward things. [1] outside sort of obvious stuff like ripping out a hotswap bay and /potentially/ critical battery status to switch on a warning light, but if you hit those situations you're probably pretty much dead anyway -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org - 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/