![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > Yes, this is fine, but is it worth writing the feature discovery code? I > suppose it doesn't matter, as it gets jettisoned after init. I guess it is > just preference. Well, you could do the feature discovery by trying to take a fault early at boot-time. That's how we verify that write-protect works, and how we check that math exceptions come in the right way.. > Could we consider doing the same with LOCK prefix for SMP kernels booted on > UP? Evil grin. Not so evil - I think it's been discussed. Not with alternates (not worth it), but it wouldn't be hard to do: just add a new section for "lock address", and have each inline asm that does a lock prefix do basically 1: lock ; xyzzy .section .lock.address .long 1b .previous and then just walk the ".lock.address" thing and turn all locks into 0x90 (nop). Linus - 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: 2005-11-11 20:24 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||