 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_CPU_FREQ change
| To: | "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_CPU_FREQ change |
| From: | "Christian Limpach" <christian.limpach@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:12:30 +0000 |
| Cc: | xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:25:42 +0000 |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BlR8zCnvLfwnqC54YzRTtKaXXxyrrWH8jDSCpBJXJoyOVqzJVo/vjtGHtgl48fFTmGgcCIEszlaC3JWTaLF0Xt4du2x/1FrKIhq27gd1+SPsjnp+HGsxMOQU6KGELRpBMfXYSQ9/Q3sPgIzqw2leD7weWgLj+gjytAIne2nfFn4= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <43F9F1C2.76F0.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <43F9F1C2.76F0.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
On 2/20/06, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To my surprise, c/s 8888 enables CPU_FREQ for x86-64 rather than disabling it
> for i386. Did anyone at your end actually
> test that if enabled this at least builds properly now? Not to mention that
> of course this also should work... If I
> remember right, the main reason for posting a patch to disable it on 32-bits
> (similar to how it was on 64-bits before)
> was that there were some missing symbols, and I don't think I saw any
> changesets addressing this. Also, from previous
> discussion I seem to recall that it was generally agreed that there is little
> point in allowing a single domain (even
> dom0) to decide whether/what power management actions should be taken without
> knowing about the requirements of the rest
> of the system...
I went with the final statement in the thread where you posted the
patch, from Jeremy Katz stating, that it was working for dom0 and that
disabling it would remove functionality. It is disabled for
unprivileged guests. I'm happy to disable it entirely, if it doesn't
build or if it doesn't work.
christian
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH, updated] i386 linux: eliminate hard coded items from __xen_guest section, Christian Limpach |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_CPU_FREQ change, Jeremy Katz |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] CONFIG_CPU_FREQ change, Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_CPU_FREQ change, Jeremy Katz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
