Re: [RT] [RFC] simple SMI detector

[Clark Williams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:18 +0100
Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > My concern about the SMI disable module is that it can damage Joe
> > users hardware. I have at least two reports where the CPU got fried
> > and some others where people got confused because chips started
> > behaving weird and it took quite a time to figure out that they used
> > the SMI disabler. A big fat warning about this code is definitely
> > necessary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> 
> 
> I suppose the non joe user could flash their motherboard with
> linuxcore and therefore do not distrub by SMI :)
> 

Except for the fact that linuxcore is unaware of the specific
requirements a particular motherboard has for thermal management.

Turning off SMI's unconditionally is a *bad* idea. Better to start
telling hardware vendors that we can't use their platform because of
unexplained latencies (which we presume to be SMI's). 

Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkl8f5oACgkQHyuj/+TTEp0JuwCfQaaugU+MY8nWHKsvXuVNmE6X
IEYAoMFn70BK9NczzHI1XnnQwy7bx/Ja
=aRKl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
N?§²æìr¸?yúè?Øb²X¬¶Ç§vØ^?)Þº{.nÇ+?·¥?{±?êçzX§¶?¡Ü¨}©?²Æ zÚ&j:+v?¨¾«?êçzZ+?Ê+zf£¢·h??§~?­?Ûiÿûàz¹®w¥¢¸??¨è­Ú&¢)ߢf?ù^jÇ«y§m?á@A«a¶Úÿ0¶ìh®å?i