Mark Lord wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module,
which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this
worked fine all the time even without all the workaround hacks.
I really hop
On Friday, 28 September 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:27 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> ..
> >> On a closely related note: I just now submitted a patch to fix
> >> SMP-poweroff,
> >> by having it do disable_nonboot_cpus before doing poweroff.
> >>
>
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:27 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
..
On a closely related note: I just now submitted a patch to fix SMP-poweroff,
by having it do disable_nonboot_cpus before doing poweroff.
Which has led me to thinking..
..are similar precautions perhaps necessary for
> And also, I wonder if at a minimum we should be guaranteeing ACPI BIOS calls
> only ever happen from CPU#0 (or the "boot" CPU)? Or do we do that already?
The real question that matters is "does windows" which possibly someone
who touches Windows can definitively answer. For APM we lock to CPU
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:27 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module,
> >> which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this
> >> worked fine all the t
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module,
which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this
worked fine all the time even without all the workaround hacks.
I really hope that this two pa
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 08:11:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> From a "future behaviour" standpoint it would probably be interesting to
> hear whether Mihai can make his machine with not with the old IDE layer
> (which distributions are migrating away from) but with the ATA layer
> (libata)
On Sunday 23 September 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I switched to libata, but it behaves like the old IDE without ACPI. I
> > did not manage to get a full dmesg (apparently all volumes are mounted
> > r/o right after a power up from a s2ram) but I did make a picture, from
> > which I quote (if
> I switched to libata, but it behaves like the old IDE without ACPI. I
> did not manage to get a full dmesg (apparently all volumes are mounted
> r/o right after a power up from a s2ram) but I did make a picture, from
> which I quote (if I may say so):
Device errors.
Libata currently (w
On Sunday, 23 September 2007 00:59, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module,
> > which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this
> > worked fine all the time even without all
On Sunday 23 September 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> From a "future behaviour" standpoint it would probably be interesting to
> hear whether Mihai can make his machine with not with the old IDE layer
> (which distributions are migrating away from) but with the ATA layer
> (libata) instead. It to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> As i never had any suspend working ever, let me point this LKML post
>
> http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> from Mihal, who just managed to do some other magic in sligtly
> different context (maybe yet another anti "ACPI screwed up").
>
> Mih
* Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
As i never had any suspend working ever, let me point this LKML post
http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
from Mihal, who just managed to do some other magic in sligtly
different context (maybe yet another anti "ACPI screwed up").
Mihai, you can find wh
Linus,
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 15:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module,
> > which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this
> > worked fine all the time even without all the workaround hacks.
> >
> > I really hope t
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module,
> which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this
> worked fine all the time even without all the workaround hacks.
>
> I really hope that this two patches final
15 matches
Mail list logo
