On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:17:01AM +0000, Brown, Len wrote: > > > > | > > WARNING: at drivers/block/floppy.c:1041 > > > > | > > setup_rw_floppy+0x2f7/0x310 [floppy]() Hardware name: System > > > > | > > Product Name > > > > | > > floppy_disable_hlt() scheduled for removal in 2012 > > > > | > > > > > | > Yes. I don't understand the point of that warning: > > > > | > http://bugs.debian.org/667501 > > > > | > > > > > | > Ben and Greg, would > > > > | > > > > > | > f6365201d8a2 x86: Remove the ancient and deprecated disable_hlt() > > > > | > and enable_hlt() facility > > > > | > > > > > | > be a candidate for inclusion in the 3.0.y and 3.2.y trees? > > > > | > > > > > | > An alternative would be to revert 3b70b2e5fcf6 ("x86 idle floppy: > > > > | > deprecate disable_hlt()", 2011-04-01), which in principle seems > > > > | > a little safer. > > > > > > > > | Gabor, does applying this patch fix this issue? > > > > > > > > Yes, using patch¹ fix this issue with 3.0.48 and 3.2.32. > > > > > > > > ¹http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=10;filename=x86-Re > > > > move-the-ancient-and-deprecated-disable_hlt-an.patch;att=1;bug=66750 > > > > 1 > > > > > > I find this particular deprecation process deeply flawed. Since we > > > had this hack for ages and it wasn't restricted to specific > > > known-broken CPUs or chipsets, how can we be confident that no later > > > 32-bit PCs depend on it? Why was the warning issued to floppy users > > > *before* the change - with no option to test the new behaviour and > > > quiet the warning > > > - and not after? Many distribution users who skip several kernel > > > versions will never see the warning at all. > > > > > > (Bonus bug: the warning was not dependent on CONFIG_X86_32.) > > > > > > Greg, which of these bad options do you think is preferable? > > > > I don't really know. I'm leaning to include the f6365201d8a2 commit, but > > am open for other opinions. > > > > greg k-h > > Re: the process > > Yes, the deprecation process is flawed, and so was (my) execution. > I sent a patch to remove this code in early 2011. Great minds objected with > "irritate people for a year and then finally do what you should have done > several years earlier". Well, the process for irritating people isn't > so clear, or even static over the period of a year, and I didn't do it > perfectly. > > However, irritation did follow, and eventually the consensus became > "just remove the warning and the damn code already", > and Ingo shipped my patch in 3.4. > > Re: this patch > > I'm fine with it being in -stable, as that is how I think Linux of all > versions should be. > It isn't pressing to remove the bogus idle, though arguably it is pressing to > remove > the lame WARNING, and this patch does both. > > I think it is far-fetched to imagine that subsequent IA32 CPU's have grown > to depend on a quirk in Linux's floppy driver. However, if that turns out > to be the case, we can revert the patch and I'll send Ben $0.05 > for losing a bet. Ben will frame that $0.05, as it will be the > first nickel bet I've ever lost.
Ok, I've included it in the next 3.0.y release, let's see what happens. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
