Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:23:02 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: Atom processor inclusion |
| |
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/20/2009 05:33 AM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am Donnerstag, 20. August 2009 12:50:29 schrieb Ingo Molnar: >>> Yep, it looked acceptable - Tobias, do you have any >>> updates / latest version of that patch? >> No - it's still the improved version I posted at the end of May [1]. The >> question is what to do with MODULE_PROC_FAMILY (CORE2 or ATOM) and the mtune- >> fallback (generic, i686, ...)? >> > > Without benchmarks, we're flying blind on that one... although in > general, "generic" is probably best in the sense that it doesn't imply > that anything else has been done to it. > > As far as MODULE_PROC_FAMILY it really comes down to if we use movbe or > not, which I don't believe your patch does. On the other hand, I really > think it's extremely unlikely that anyone will use modules compiled for > a different CPU, so I'm personally fine with changing that string. > > That whole mechanism is kind of broken, anyway. >
personally, I would prefer it if we did a simple hash of the WHOLE cflags, and put that into the module version string. Anything else is just a weak, and useless, substitute for that.
Using different CFLAGS in any shape or form should disqualify the module as "incompatible".. and a simple hash is sufficient for that.....
| |