Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lockif possible

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The "if anyone else uses the PMU throw in your toys and sulk" check was
> only recently added.

,, and I'd like to point out that we should just say "screw the
f*cking BIOS, it's doing things wrong". And then just take over the
PMU events, and make sure that they aren't routed to SCI. Instead of
the current "ok, roll over and die when the BIOS does something
idiotic".

People continuously claim that the BIOS really needs it, and I have
never EVER seen any good explanation of why that particular sh*t
argument would b true. It seems to be purely about politics, where
some idiotic vendor (namely HP) has convinced Intel that they really
need it. To the point where some engineers seem to have bought into
the whole thing and actually believe that fairy tale ("firmware can do
better" - hah! They must be feeding people some bad drugs at the
cafeteria)

                     Linus
--
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/