On 30 Dec 2001 15:05:54 -0500
Thomas Hood <jdthood@mail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen
>
> Just a note to say that the patch combining "idling"
> and "notification order" changes is looking good so far.
> http://panopticon.csustan.edu/thood/apm.html
> (No one has complained, anyway.) I think it's ready
> for more extensive testing. Should it go into a 2.4.X-preY
> kernel?
OK, I have a slightly modified version of the patch that I created just
before starting my Christmas break. The only problem is that it crashes
the kernel hard when I remove the apm module. I have not had a chance
to get back to it since then, but I am back at work in Wednesday and
it has my highest priority at the moment.
Question: Has anyone got any empirical evidence that this patch
improves the idling behaviour? i.e. does it consume less power or
lower the temperature? I intend to try to measure this on Wednesday,
but a wider set of data is always better.
Thanks again for putting these patches together.
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/