On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 04:15:29PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >> I wasn't aware of any problems with suspend. My laptop doesn't resume
> >> reliably anyway, so it's not something I tested for. But it's just
> >> running some code in a tim
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> I wasn't aware of any problems with suspend. My laptop doesn't resume
>> reliably anyway, so it's not something I tested for. But it's just
>> running some code in a timeout. If timeouts are still running during
>> suspend, I'd say that'
On 09/10/10 18:39, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> Ok while I'm at it, does this diff cope well while suspending? The c2k10
>> diff had issues with that, and I see nothing in this diff that seems to
>> check for that.
>
> I wasn't aware of any problems with suspend. My laptop doesn't resume
> reliably any
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> + if (!totalticks)
>> + if (!(totalticks = malloc(sizeof(*totalticks) * ncpusfound,
>> + M_DEVBUF, M_NOWAIT | M_ZERO))) {
>> + free(idleticks, M_DEVBUF);
>> + return;
On 09/10/10 04:16, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Now with more off! Yes, that's right, now you can turn it off.
>
> sysctl hw.setperf values 0 to 100 work just as before. The magic value -1
> turns on auto adjust. Manualy setting the value turns off auto mode.
>
> Index: init_main.c
>
Now with more off! Yes, that's right, now you can turn it off.
sysctl hw.setperf values 0 to 100 work just as before. The magic value -1
turns on auto adjust. Manualy setting the value turns off auto mode.
Index: init_main.c
===
