Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756714Ab1CaJ03 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:26:29 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:49836 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752485Ab1CaJ01 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:26:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:23:55 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Len Brown , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Len Brown , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86 idle: remove NOP cpuinfo_x86.hlt_works_ok flag Message-ID: <20110331102355.17d30a38@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110331081800.GH5938@elte.hu> References: <67e90d97e0a77df4acd0c75e1bacc7714e011f3e.1301550524.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20110331061247.GA24786@elte.hu> <20110331081800.GH5938@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 912 Lines: 24 > Do we know whether a distro adds this to the boot line? Do we know about users > relying on it. I certainly had hardware that needed it. Don't any more but this is more trying to rip out stuff without letting nature take its course. It's a trivial feature item. > > Do we really need both? > > Probably not, as i said i do not disagree - i just think it should be more > explicit. Make it a: "users of CPU models X beware" commit title, not 'remove > inactive code' ... Just make the one config variable respond to both boot configuration options. The parser is __init code anyway so discarded so the actual code cost of compatibility is exactly NIL. Alan -- 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/