[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikBs5R2KmGfDSXyi5y-cKuZepZCdr0KOVe5-MX6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:47:27 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> ba0593bf553c450a03dbc5f8c1f0ff58b778a0c8 cleared the aforementioned
> cpuid bit only on 32-bit due to various problems with Virtual PC. This
> somehow got lost during the 32- + 64-bit merge so restore the feature
> bit on 64-bit. For that, set it explicitly for non-constant arguments of
> cpu_has(). Update comment for future reference.
I don't think this is right.
The cpu_has() logic depends not on x86-64, but on X86_P6_NOP.
Which has
depends on X86_64
depends on (MCORE2 || MPENTIUM4 || MPSC)
as its config rules, not just X86_64.
So I think your patch is bogus. It makes the current situation even
_more_ confusing than it is.
So what is it? Should we get rid of that odd X86_P6_NOP thing
entirely? Or should we use it consistently for the "this machine has
NOPL"? Should we always use P6_NOP for x86-64 and just remove the
"MCORE2 || MPENTIUM4 || MPSC" thing?
Whatever we do, I don't think this patch is the right one.
Linus
--
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