[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4822F4A1.2030602@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 14:40:01 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce a new Linux defined feature flag for PAT
support
On 08-05-08 12:19, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Use a new Linux defined X86_FEATURE_PAT_GOOD feature flag to
>
> Better would be PAT_TESTED or PAT_RANDOMLY_APPROVED. Most of these
> CPUs without PAT_GOOD have actually perfectly good PAT, as Windows
> proves every day.
>
> The main flaw in all of this of course is that there is no procedure
> to test CPUs which do not have the flag set yet.
Quite. And hiding the fact that the CPU _should_ have perfectly good
PAT doesn't help any at all. The discussion turned into a mini-flame
war enough that now noone would even consider backing down, but this
current PAT setup just sucks plain and simple.
Rene.
--
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