Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Lyle Coder" <> | Subject | Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 | Date | Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:06:11 -0800 |
| |
Alan, are you saying that rep;nop is not needed in the spinlocks? (because they are for P4)
Thanks Lyle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: "Andre Hedrick" <andre@linux-ide.org> Cc: "Frank Davis" <fdavis112@juno.com>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:13 AM Subject: Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5
> > Not to worry, some of us are working with the 'I' guys to do proper P4 > > detection. > > Be careful with the intel patches. The ones I've seen so far tried to call the > cpu 'if86' breaking several tools that do cpu model checking off uname. They > didnt fix the 2GHz CPU limit, they use 'rep nop' in the locks which is > explicitly 'undefined behaviour' for non intel processors and they use the > TSC without checking it had one. > > Hopefully they have improved since > > Alan > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |