[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C977D07.7030506@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:25:59 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, cpuid: Unbreak CPB CPUID feature
On 09/20/2010 08:20 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Date: Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:10:49AM -0400
>
>> On 09/20/2010 07:05 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> 5958f1d5d722df7a9e5d129676614a8e5219bacd added mistakenly the CPB bit to
>>> the common scattered CPUID features. Move it to AMD-only code where it
>>> belongs.
>>
>> I already asked for more information about this.
>
> ?? When? I prepped this one a couple of hours ago... Am I missing something?
>
Looks like Bugzilla didn't register the reply. I have resent it.
>> This patch, without a further description, makes absolutely no sense,
>> and is furthermore implemented poorly -- I really don't want more ad
>> hoc code if it can be avoided.
>
> Well, I use the feature bit in powernow-k8.c. We don't need to advertize
> it in /proc/cpuinfo per se if that's what you prefer?
No, I'm asking why it's being moved away from the common area -- I don't
see any evidence that it causes the reported failure scenario, and it
complicates the code needlessly.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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