Re: stable-proposed-updates: considering cpufrequtils
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
tested on a stable system?