Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:18:12 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> Cc: "sbruno@freebsd.org" <sbruno@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] Sparse Cstate Support -- Its possible, that I don't know what I'm doing. Message-ID: <4FE23004.3080609@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1340208849.2858.2.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> References: <1340121728.5203.8.camel@powernoodle> <4FE0EA24.6000906@FreeBSD.org> <1340142162.3201.12.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <4FE158FF.5070209@FreeBSD.org> <1340208849.2858.2.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 20/06/2012 19:14 Sean Bruno said the following: > Since this patch changes the output of the sysctl format, I disagree > with it. And I am not proposing it for the tree. > I also, disagree with the idea of "FreeBSD C-states" as that is not the > intention of the code. The code, from my read, is trying to interpret > C-states as though they are always defined sequentially and non-sparse. I seem to recall that this is an ACPI requirement. I could be mistaken, but no time to double-check at the moment. > I am still of the opinion that my patch is correct at this point. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE23004.3080609>