On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:03:37AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:Main reason for white-list at this point is not to be side-tracked by real or potential erratas on older CPUs. Focussing on getting the support for this feature on current and future CPUs. If older CPUs have survived all these days without this feature, they should be doing OK. Other reason being the amount of testing we get on those older systems. I mean, any regression on some specific CPU is hard to find unless it is being tested or someone audits all the errata documents to prepare the blacklist (Unless we want to have big blacklist which is just !current_whitelist). We do not have any self test that can detect and report any problematic CPUs that we can add to the blacklist. Having said that, if there is a need for this on older CPUs, I am OK with having this as a blacklist. Thanks, Venki --
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interfaceforon access scanning |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Eric W. Biederman | Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL" |
git: | |
