linux-kernel - Re: [Question] x86,APIC: In apicdef.h dfr,svr,...... shouldn't be const?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0909040019180.27310@eddie.linux-mips.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Sep 2009 00:21:39 +0100 (BST)
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Question] x86,APIC: In apicdef.h dfr,svr,...... shouldn't be 
 const?

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Rakib Mullick wrote:

> >  All the three have meaningful semantics on writes at least on some
> >  versions of the APIC (they either have writable fields or trigger side
> >  effects on writes).  It looks like your documentation is wrong (not
> >  unheard of with Intel).
> 
> Thanks, Maciej. If my documentation is wrong, then which documentation
> should I follow? Isn't there any well defined document?

 You may have to track down an older revision of the document or that for 
an older CPU.  These registers may have changed as the architecture 
evolved and while Linux supports all the APIC versions, Intel may have 
omitted details for earlier implementations either deliberately or 
accidentally.

  Maciej
--
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/