[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48232F86.7050308@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 09:51:18 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
Alan Cox wrote:
>> For old CPUs it is actually ok (after all they worked for years without
>> PAT), I just don't like it for new CPUs. It's a bad idea there and
>> in the x86 world it is a reasonable expectation that CPU features
>> generally work.
>
> Agreed 100%. We should default to assuming newer processors work. That
> will be true in almost if not all cases anyway, and since it'll bite
> anyone at Intel/AMD/.. testing new CPU steppings when it is on by default
> any problem cases won't be leaving the labs.
Yes, capping the upper end is an actively bad thing, because it can
actually *make* bugs appear (by artifically limiting testing by CPU houses.)
-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