Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756649Ab1CYJfd (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:35:33 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:45609 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756062Ab1CYJfb (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:35:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:35:09 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , Eric Dumazet , Jack Steiner , Jan Beulich , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Nick Piggin , "x86@kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , tee@sgi.com, Nikanth Karthikesan , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible Message-ID: <20110325093509.GC13640@elte.hu> References: <20110324085647.GI30812@elte.hu> <20110324145221.GC31194@aftab> <4D8B83DA02000078000381DE@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20110324173020.GA26761@sgi.com> <20110324200010.GB7957@elte.hu> <1300999682.2714.23.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20110324205422.GB2393@elte.hu> <1301000557.2714.33.camel@edumazet-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1228 Lines: 29 * Linus Torvalds wrote: > ,, and I'd like to point out that we should just say "screw the > f*cking BIOS, it's doing things wrong". And then just take over the > PMU events, and make sure that they aren't routed to SCI. Instead of > the current "ok, roll over and die when the BIOS does something > idiotic". > > People continuously claim that the BIOS really needs it, and I have > never EVER seen any good explanation of why that particular sh*t > argument would b true. It seems to be purely about politics, where > some idiotic vendor (namely HP) has convinced Intel that they really > need it. To the point where some engineers seem to have bought into > the whole thing and actually believe that fairy tale ("firmware can do > better" - hah! They must be feeding people some bad drugs at the > cafeteria) Ok, fully agreed, and i've changed the code to "detect the BIOS breakage, warn about it but otherwise ignore the BIOS". Thanks, Ingo -- 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/