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

[Andi Kleen]

> 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)

For the record I don't think it's a good idea for the BIOS to do 
this (and I'm not aware of any engineer who does),  
but I think Linux should do better than just disabling PMU use when 
this happens.

However I suspect taking over SCI would cause endless problems
and is very likely not a good idea.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/