On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:00 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I do not think that this is a real problem. A cosmetic one - most > likely. > >> > > Yes, most likely. Except that the code seems to think that the > index of > > the Cstates is good enough for a comparison to value. More over, > the > > sysctl's accept a value like "C3" and manipulate that into an index > into > > the Cstate array without checking for the Cstate value. > > > > The impact of this patch corrects this cosmetic display issue. > > If you accept that there are "FreeBSD C-states" and everything is done > in terms > of them, then there is no problem. > I once wrote this trivial patch to see more information about > FreeBSD-reported > C-states: > https://gitorious.org/~avg/freebsd/avgbsd/commit/043e9b0da5b46d389971e0166789fbee8a4e8622?format=patch >
Since this patch changes the output of the sysctl format, I disagree with it. I also, disagree with the idea of "FreeBSD C-states" as that is not the intention of the code. The code, from my read, is trying to interpret C-states as though they are always defined sequentially and non-sparse. I am still of the opinion that my patch is correct at this point. Sean _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
