Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU

2001-03-03 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 23:35:34 + (GMT), Alan Cox wrote: >> Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What= >> am I >> missing? > >If you've stopped kapm-idled from using cpu then you've stopped it from going >into the bios suspend one presumes. Maybe, maybe not.

Re: [kernel] Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)%CPU time

2001-03-03 Thread Francis Galiegue
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > > Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What am I > > missing? > > apm_bios_call must not be called with two identical pointers for > two different registers. > OK, my bad... By replacing the call I made with this:

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU

2001-03-03 Thread Alan Cox
> Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What= > am I > missing? If you've stopped kapm-idled from using cpu then you've stopped it from going into the bios suspend one presumes. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body

Re: [kernel] Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU time

2001-03-03 Thread Philipp Rumpf
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 12:19:07AM +0100, Francis Galiegue wrote: > Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What am I > missing? apm_bios_call must not be called with two identical pointers for two different registers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU time

2001-03-03 Thread Alan Cox
> As attachment. Don't ask me why it works. Rather, if you see why it works, I'd > like to know why :) Why are you breaking kapm-idled. It is supposed to take all that cpu time. You just broke all the power saving - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU time

2001-03-03 Thread Alan Cox
As attachment. Don't ask me why it works. Rather, if you see why it works, I'd like to know why :) Why are you breaking kapm-idled. It is supposed to take all that cpu time. You just broke all the power saving - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the

Re: [kernel] Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU time

2001-03-03 Thread Philipp Rumpf
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 12:19:07AM +0100, Francis Galiegue wrote: Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What am I missing? apm_bios_call must not be called with two identical pointers for two different registers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU

2001-03-03 Thread Alan Cox
Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What= am I missing? If you've stopped kapm-idled from using cpu then you've stopped it from going into the bios suspend one presumes. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of

Re: [kernel] Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)%CPU time

2001-03-03 Thread Francis Galiegue
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Philipp Rumpf wrote: Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What am I missing? apm_bios_call must not be called with two identical pointers for two different registers. OK, my bad... By replacing the call I made with this: u32

Re: [PATCH] 2.4.2: cure the kapm-idled taking (100-epsilon)% CPU

2001-03-03 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 23:35:34 + (GMT), Alan Cox wrote: Well, from reading the source, I don't see how this can break APM... What= am I missing? If you've stopped kapm-idled from using cpu then you've stopped it from going into the bios suspend one presumes. Maybe, maybe not. Short