Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there'sno local APIC

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On 06/12/09 11:28, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +		if (error == -EINVAL) {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * The ACPI tables themselves were malformed.
> > +			 * Dell Precision Workstation 410, 610 come here.
> > +			 */
> > +			printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX
> > +			       "Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI\n");
> > +			disable_acpi();
> > +		} else {
> >      
>
> This seems a very bad model. On todays systems turning off ACPI renders
> them basically useless. If the MADT is bogus its far better to pray that
> they rest of the ACPI is mostly sound and continue by ignoring the only
> dodgy table.
>    

I didn't make any change there; I just preserved the original behaviour 
of stopping all ACPI parsing when it returned -EINVAL (with a slightly 
more helpful comment).  My change was to make it continue to the I/O 
APICs if it returned something else (ie, -ENODEV).

    J
--
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/