linux-kernel - Re: Is 386 processor still supported?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87vdspwyod.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:27:30 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Adam Osuchowski <adwol@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Is 386 processor still supported?

Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> writes:
>
> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> Subject: x86: make spinlocks available on machines without xadd insn
>
> Current kernel wouldn't compile on ancient x86 machines that don't support 
> xadd instruction, as ticket spinlocks implementation unconditionally uses 
> it.
>
> On machines without CONFIG_X86_XADD, use old-style byte spinlock 
> implementation instead.

The assumption was always the 386s don't run SMP.

So I think it would be better if you just made these xadds 
part of the UP patch implementation and patch them out on
UP systems similar to how it's done for LOCK prefixes. 
That would help non 386 UP systems too.
 
-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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/