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: [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

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

2001-03-03 Thread Francis Galiegue
As attachment. Don't ask me why it works. Rather, if you see why it works, I'd like to know why :) Patch also applies cleanly over 2.4.2-ac10. -- Francis Galiegue, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Normand et fier de l'être "Programming is a race between programmers, who try and make more and more

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

2001-03-03 Thread Francis Galiegue
As attachment. Don't ask me why it works. Rather, if you see why it works, I'd like to know why :) Patch also applies cleanly over 2.4.2-ac10. -- Francis Galiegue, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Normand et fier de l'tre "Programming is a race between programmers, who try and make more and more

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: [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