[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484F065B.2050002@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:55:23 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: PAT: fix ambiguous paranoia check in pat_init()
On 10-06-08 16:05, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> Starting with commit 8d4a4300854f3971502e81dacd930704cb88f606 (x86:
> cleanup PAT cpu validation) the PAT CPU feature flag is not cleared
> anymore. Now the error message
>
> "PAT enabled, but CPU feature cleared"
>
> in pat_init() is misleading.
No, it's correct. This is to be read as "The PAT feature is enabled in
the kernel but the CPU claims to not have PAT". The message is not a
leftover from the old flag-clearing setup or anything; it was introduced
in the patch that disabled that.
> Furthermore the current code does not check for existence of the PAT
> CPU feature flag if a CPU is whitelisted in validate_pat_support.
Which is okay-ish, or at least by design it seems. The paranoia check in
pat.c will catch this case.
The current setup is okay really. The only thing it still wants is a
commandline whitelist switch but that needs a somewhat different setup
as validate_pat_support() is too early for __setup() or early_param().
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