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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ,, 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)

Ok, fully agreed, and i've changed the code to "detect the BIOS breakage,
warn about it but otherwise ignore the BIOS".

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/