On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed 2008-05-07 15:23:46, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>  > >  2) HPA said it was bad idea
>  >
>  > hpa said white list is not a good idea.
>
>  And guess what your patch is doing?
>
>
>  +       switch (c->x86_vendor) {
>  +       case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
>  +               if (c->x86 >= 0xf && c->x86 <= 0x11)
>  +                       set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_PAT);
>  +               break;
>  +       case X86_VENDOR_INTEL:
>  +               if (c->x86 == 0xF || (c->x86 == 6 && c->x86_model >=
>  15))
>  +                       set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_PAT);
>  +               break;
>  +       }
>
>  Seems like a whitelist to me. Will break with future CPUs.

again, i only increased the whitelist a little bit to support AMD
opteron Rev E, Rev F and Fam10h that I could access.

the code handle future cpus should reach the kernel list before SW
developer could get system....

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/