[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161201090211.nrlyjt5uklcva3pd@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:02:11 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Matthew Whitehead <tedheadster@...il.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Revert "x86/boot: Fail the boot if !M486 and CPUID
is missing"
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:53:50AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:34:53PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > This reverts commit ed68d7e9b9cfb64f3045ffbcb108df03c09a0f98.
> >
> > The patch wasn't quite correct -- there are non-Intel (and hence
> > non-486) CPUs that we support that don't have CPUID. Since we no
> > longer require CPUID for sync_core(), just revert the patch.
>
> Might be useful to enumerate which special parts these are.
Right, and since we test for CPUID support at early boot, I think we
should use the X86_FEATURE_CPUID aspect from what I proposed earlier:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161120111917.pw3alolx4fksfwbv@pd.tnic
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists