From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 12 19:12:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1D216A4DD; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:12:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B739843D49; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:12:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.250]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7CJCeEc087663; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i7CJCe2v030529; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i7CJCeKK030528; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:12:40 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Nate Lawson Message-ID: <20040812191240.GA30489@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <411BA70D.7010804@root.org> <20040812185649.GA30420@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> <411BBE25.3070404@root.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <411BBE25.3070404@root.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: acpi@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ACPI mpsafe patch for testing X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:12:41 -0000 On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 11:59:49AM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: > > For ia64, I was most concerned about alignment issues. So anything (UP > or SMP) that exercises code paths is helpful. The only SMP-specific > things to test are power-off on shutdown. Run it a bunch of times to be > sure that it continues to work. Note this isn't in the acpi locking > path but ACPI-CA has its own locks which are now not redundantly covered > by Giant. It has been running this way in Linux for a year or so. > Still, it's good to have that test coverage too. Ok, will do. I probably won't have it done by the time you planned to commit this, but given current results I suggest you don't wait... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net