[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F3A1F8DF9@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:51:28 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/18] x86/intel_rdt: Add Haswell feature discovery
> I wonder what's worse - comparing SKU strings - we know that from the MCE
> recovery experience - or poking at maybe nonexistent MSRs? :-)
>
> I guess the latter is cleaner so let's try it.
Vikas got beat up for comparing SKU strings, so the probe method
was offered as an alternative. It's definitely more robust. E.g. my
list turns out to be incomplete, somehow I forgot to include:
Intel(R) Xeon(R) processor E5-2658A v3
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists