On 21-Jan-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
How is this?
--- acpi_cpu.c 16 Oct 2002 17:28:52 - 1.14
+++ acpi_cpu.c 21 Jan 2003 06:07:43 -
@@ -295,8 +295,10 @@
/* set initial speed */
acpi_cpu_power_profile(NULL);
-printf(acpi_cpu: CPU throttling enabled, %d
Nate Lawson wrote:
How is this?
[ ... less alarming throttling message ... ]
I like it. I don't know if it's redundant with the currently ...
thing, but I'd like to see it:
+printf(acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from %d.%d%% to 100%%,
Instead; of course, that's my left-to-right
+printf(acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from 100%% to %d.%d%%,
+ currently %d.%d%%\n
Personally, rather than 'enabled', how about 'available'? Using the
word enabled might give some newbies fits when they try to figure it
out what it means. It sounds like the throttling is
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Daniel Holmes wrote:
+printf(acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from 100%% to %d.%d%%,
+ currently %d.%d%%\n
Personally, rather than 'enabled', how about 'available'? Using the
word enabled might give some newbies fits when they try to figure it
out
Daniel Holmes wrote:
+printf(acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from 100%% to %d.%d%%,
+ currently %d.%d%%\n
Personally, rather than 'enabled', how about 'available'? Using the
word enabled might give some newbies fits when they try to figure it
out what it means. It
In the last episode (Jan 21), Terry Lambert said:
I think that changing the order from 100% to 10% to 10% to 100%
will, if people ignore the second printed line, imply that there was
a transition from 10% to 100%, rather than the reverse (that was my
response to the patch).
Or better yet,
