WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: suppress HPET broadcast initialization in t

To: "Keir Fraser" <keir@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: suppress HPET broadcast initialization in the presence of ARAT
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:15:08 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gang Wei <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:16:14 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C97BE8BA.133DE%keir@xxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE71259BBC109F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C97BE8BA.133DE%keir@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 12.02.11 at 08:35, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/02/2011 07:15, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Jan Beulich wrote on 2011-02-10:
>>> This follows Linux commit 39fe05e58c5e448601ce46e6b03900d5bf31c4b0,
>>> noticing that all this setup is pointless when ARAT support is there,
>>> and knowing that on SLED11's native kernel it has actually caused S3 resume
>>> issues.
>>> 
>> 
>> Although this patch was already checked in, I still have to say it is not
>> necessary for Xen. Because hpet_broadcast_init() fn is only called if
>> (xen_cpuidle && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT)) in disable_pit_irq(). Of
>> course I agree to keep it as a never used double check.
> 
> Hmm I didn't spot that. Actually it is part of a more complex series of
> checks in the caller, so I wonder whether repeating just that one check in
> the function itself really makes much sense. I'm somewhat inclibned to
> revert it.

Yes, revert it - somehow I managed to not notice we do this check
already.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel