![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > just not do it on the right CPU (you're _not_ supposed to read to see if > > you are writing the same value: MTRR's can at least in theory have > > side-effects, so it's not the same check as for the microcode update). > So why not just set it twice - surely that is harmless ? Why add complex > code ? I wondered the same thing of the microcode changes. Since for the commoncase (ie, non-HT) it now has the side-effect of doing this.. microcode: CPU0 updated from revision 7 to 7, date-10151999 which looks odd in comparison to the old "already current" msg. -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||