Re: stable-proposed-updates: considering cpufrequtils
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 05:33:10PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 07:52 +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> > I'm wondering if it's worth updating cpufrequtils in Squeeze to the
> > current version in testing/unstable.
> > There are a couple of fixes that are worth considering in there and
> > namely: fixing support for linux 3.0 (some modules have been moved
> > and broke assumptions in cpufrequtils init scripts) and support for AMD
> > family 20 CPUs.
> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this.
> > + * Bulk load only helper modules. Linux 3.0 shuffled cpufreq modules
> > + locations a bit and now cpu drivers and helpers are in the same directory
> > + (closes: #636141).
> > + * Use modprobe -b in loadcpufreq to honour blacklisted modules
> > + (closes: #592488).
> > + * Load powernow-k8 for AMD family 20 (i.e. AMD E-350 cpus)
> > + (closes: #627811).
> > + * Stop changing printk levels when loading cpufreq modules (closes: #624575
> > + and closes: #596235).
> I've been debating whether to accept all of the changes, and changed my
> mind a few times while arguing with myself. :-) Have the changes been
what is your current stance? :)
> tested on a stable system?
To be honest I haven't tried it myself on a stable system but I'll give
it a go in the next days (towards the weekend most likely). The change
that my have a funny dependency is the "-b" addition to modprobe but
other than that it's all pretty safe and it's mostly removing
unnecessary code or making the find predicate more specific.
On the other hand there are a couple of backports of the whole package
already so I don't expect many surprises.