* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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);
> }
Absolutely agreed, we don't want to carry it on 'just because', the
compatibility aspect needs to be documented - otherwise we degrade
into cargo cult programming.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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
