on 20/06/2012 19:14 Sean Bruno said the following: > Since this patch changes the output of the sysctl format, I disagree > with it.
And I am not proposing it for the tree. > 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 seem to recall that this is an ACPI requirement. I could be mistaken, but no time to double-check at the moment. > I am still of the opinion that my patch is correct at this point. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
