H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted text
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>  OK, note previous question: what is the motivation for having 
>>>>>  this as a whitelist (as opposed to a blacklist)?
>>>> Venkatesh could tell?
>>> 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.
>>
>> well, the upside would be that since most testing of Linux kernels is 
>> done on _old_ hardware (people tend to risk their old hw first ;-), 
>> we'd get faster convergence of the codebase, even though we have the 
>> risk of erratas (known and unknown ones alike). Code that artificially 
>> limits its utility is almost always slow to stabilize.
>>
> 
> Yes, using a whitelist of this type is wrong, IMO, and smells faintly of 
> vendor-lockin.
> 

By the way, I want to clarify: I didn't mean it was *intended* as 
vendor-lockin, just that it's an undesirable effect of this.

	-hpa
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/