linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files are inappropriate or CPU is not 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: <20090414191622.GA797@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:16:22 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files are
	inappropriate or CPU is not supported


* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > > Do you still think that boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor is better option in
> > > case for multiple CPUs.
> > 
> > yes. Assymetric SMP never really happened on x86.
> 
> It did but not between vendors. You can get away with a vendor 
> assumption but cpu type (mixed 486SX/DX, PII/PIII/Celeron) mixed 
> steppings and mixed speeds do occur. We've never supported the 
> mixed 486SX cases but the PII/PIII cases work (or at least 
> worked).

yeah - but look at the specific purpose here: we are deciding 
whether to print out state information related to major CPU 
features. Mixed steppings/speeds might happen, mixed apic / 
non-lapic not really.

	Ingo
--
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/