On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
quoted text
>
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>  > 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.

if the PAT works, we may need to trim the memory according to MTRR, right?

YH
--
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/