lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 07 May 2008 19:28:57 -0700
From"H. Peter Anvin" <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: introduce a new Linux defined feature flag for PAT support
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>> *Certainly* I don't want anything like this crap:
>>
>>> -    if (cpu_has_pat)
>>> +    if (cpu_has_pat && cpu_has_pat_good)
> 
> This in fact is likely the best part of it.
> 
> Because that at least guarantees that we never say we have a good PAT when 
> the hardware doesn't even report it.
> 
> As it is, we seem to just blindly override hardware. It may be correct for 
> all the models we override, but still..
> 

Yah, this is not good.  We should mask out the bit, but never, ever, set 
it if it was clear to begin with (unless we have it on really, *really*, 
good authority.)

I'm embarrassed to have let that slink by.

	-hpa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-08 04:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2008