[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 17:42:46 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, borislav.petkov@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: clear incorrectly forced X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM flag
* Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com> wrote:
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Some BIOSes incorrectly set this feature, but only
> > + * Revision E (with Extended Model = 2) actually supports
> > + * it.
> > + */
> > + if (!(level & 0x00020000))
> > + clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM);
>
> let me check this internally next week because it seems that
> according to the Fam 0xf RevGuide
> (http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/25759.pdf) erratum
> 110 applies to atleast 3 CPU revisions with extended model 0x1
> too.
Ok, mind resending the patch (or dropping it) if you figured that
out? We need to be careful about restoring CPU erratum workarounds
that BIOSen install ... these things are very hard to test and easy
to get wrong.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists