[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E962AE.9040307@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:38:06 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: pat cpu feature bit setting for known cpus
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
>
>>>> OK, note previous question: what is the motivation for having
>>>> this as a whitelist (as opposed to a blacklist)?
>>> Venkatesh could tell?
>> Main reason for white-list at this point is not to be side-tracked by
>> real or potential erratas on older CPUs. Focussing on getting the
>> support for this feature on current and future CPUs. If older CPUs
>> have survived all these days without this feature, they should be
>> doing OK.
>
> well, the upside would be that since most testing of Linux kernels is
> done on _old_ hardware (people tend to risk their old hw first ;-), we'd
> get faster convergence of the codebase, even though we have the risk of
> erratas (known and unknown ones alike). Code that artificially limits
> its utility is almost always slow to stabilize.
>
Yes, using a whitelist of this type is wrong, IMO, and smells faintly of
vendor-lockin.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists