https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42870
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Müller <g...@stapelspeicher.org> 2012-09-06 09:55:14 --- Hi Thomas, I thought this would be the appropriate place. Although the patch fixes a problem, there might be a problem in future. At first with cpuidle. As far as I can see, one shouldn't mess with state->power_usage outside of cpuidle without setting the state->power_specified bit. So either cpuidle or (acpi) processor_idle should set/update those exclusively. Furthermore the states are only initialized from cpu-0. Is it possible that different cpus may have different states (types, names etc.)? It seems to be intended that this is not the case and to be this way. When new cstates arise only for some cpu (whereas it would be only called if cpu-0 states would change too), that might be a problem. On the other hand that could be nonsense and not the problem of that specific bug. ;) The last hunk in the patch shouldn't really be necessary, but the call of acpi_processor_get_power_info() for processor 0 (the initial pr will always be processor 0) is superfluous. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ acpi-bugzilla mailing list acpi-bugzilla@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-bugzilla
