On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:39:45PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > As a side note, at minimum the semantic and compatibility difference
> > needs to be _very_ clearly present in the naming. Something like
> > mwait_old_() or mwait_core2_(). That way such dependencies and
> > assumptions don't get lost in code restructuring, etc.
>
> Agreed.
> We started with mwait_idle() -- which was erroneously removed
> and is now being restored under it original name.
>
> The "new" function is mwait_idle_with_hints() -- which uses
> the additional hints that were not available w/ the original MWAIT instruction.
> Where "new" is Core Duo and later -- all the processor that can use
> MWAIT for C-states deeper than C1.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain what's wrong with:
static inline void mwait_idle(void)
{
local_irq_enable();
mwait_idle_with_hints(0, 0);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
