On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 01:12:45PM +1100, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote: >> I will also note that for some applications (i.e., military hardware >> running under battle conditions), where it might be that running the >> hardware beyond its thermal limits might actually be *desirable*. >> After all, an extra 15 minutes of running beyond thermal limits that >> eventually causes the CPU to get flakey might be worth it if the >> alternative is the ship getting sunk because the BIOS decided that >> shutting down the CPU to save it from thermal damage was more >> important than say, running the anti-aircraft guns.... > > In that case the system designer knows exactly what he is doing and he > is aware of the consequences. > > My concern about the SMI disable module is that it can damage Joe > users hardware. I have at least two reports where the CPU got fried > and some others where people got confused because chips started > behaving weird and it took quite a time to figure out that they used > the SMI disabler. A big fat warning about this code is definitely > necessary. > > Thanks, I suppose the non joe user could flash their motherboard with linuxcore and therefore do not distrub by SMI :) Regards Bastien -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html