[CFT] Sparse Cstate Support -- Its possible, that I don't know what I'm doing.

[Sean Bruno]

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:00 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > I do not think that this is a real problem.  A cosmetic one - most
> likely.
> >>
> > Yes, most likely.  Except that the code seems to think that the
> index of
> > the Cstates is good enough for a comparison to value.  More over,
> the
> > sysctl's accept a value like "C3" and manipulate that into an index
> into
> > the Cstate array without checking for the Cstate value.
> > 
> > The impact of this patch corrects this cosmetic display issue.  
> 
> If you accept that there are "FreeBSD C-states" and everything is done
> in terms
> of them, then there is no problem.
> I once wrote this trivial patch to see more information about
> FreeBSD-reported
> C-states:
> https://gitorious.org/~avg/freebsd/avgbsd/commit/043e9b0da5b46d389971e0166789fbee8a4e8622?format=patch 

Since this patch changes the output of the sysctl format, I disagree
with it.

I also, disagree with the idea of "FreeBSD C-states" as that is not the
intention of the code.  The code, from my read, is trying to interpret
C-states as though they are always defined sequentially and non-sparse.
I am still of the opinion that my patch is correct at this point.

Sean