[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: coding for optimizations (Re: [PATCH 1/2] i386: mce cleanup part1: functional change)
    On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:21:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:26:09PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:14:29AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > []
    > > > It's also a quite ill idea to think about whether gcc might produce a
    > > > few bytes more or less code at the if when there's such a long printk()
    > > > in the middle...
    > >
    > > printk() problem was discussed with proper banana userspace replacement
    > > proposition by me, so i don't care much.
    > >
    > > Though, why MCE can't be enabled/disabled by config option? Native
    > > engineers from proper company should know what processors have this
    > > feature... If kconfig isn't flexible for this, i'm glad to hear
    > > opinions. If it's needed anyway, then sorry.
    > You should better say sorry for not having checked that it can already
    > be disabled with a kconfig option...

    Talk is not about wana-build-MCE-in, given to the user's sake. But about
    flexible selection of this code, if it is really supported by CPU, when
    user have it enabled (see winchip/preventium sub-thread). More work, it
    is not such quick patch, certainly, but this is needed for famous i386.

    I wonder, why such patch wasn't introduced long time ago. Modern
    (cheap) chips have no MCE?
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-11 18:01    [W:0.020 / U:151.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site