Re: 2.6.20.4: NETDEV WATCHDOG and lockups

[Christian Kujau]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
> These days I think it's usually best to have ACPI on with current systems.

Whooha, really? While I honor the acpi-folks' work when using a desktop 
machine I am otherwise always reminded to the comment in 
arch/i386/kernel/apm.c, which basically says: "write bios code, does it 
compile? does it boot win98? ->ship it" ;))

> Although it's not as bad with servers, many machines are designed to run only 
> Windows (which normally always uses ACPI) and simply aren't tested well or at 
> all with ACPI disabled so you can run into a lot of problems which are just 
> bugs in the BIOS, etc.

I only thought it was the other way around: less (active, used) code - 
less bug (caused by strange ACPI implementations). But I can see your 
point.

> Also, on the server side, if ACPI is disabled you can't take advantage of CPU 
> clock frequency scaling to save power.

I'm happy to do this with the new cpufreq interface, but right now I 
could not care less about saving power :(

Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #305:

IRQ-problems with the Un-Interruptible-Power-Supply
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/