Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:24:39 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.1-pre1 breaks XFree 4.0.2 and "w" |
| |
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:35:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:42:32AM -0500, Richard A Nelson wrote: > > > > > > Its fine either way on current x86 and many other platforms, but falls > > > on its face in the presence of asymetric MP. > > > > Point taken, feel free to have a can_I_use per-cpu instead of global but don't > > overwrite the cpu_has with it. > > Andrea, the whole POINT of "cpu_has_xxx" is for the kernel to test for > features like this.
I'm only concerned about the semantics of fxsr and xmm in /proc/cpuinfo, _not_ about the kernel implementation and self contained #defines (that I'd preferred if they really meant cpu_has and not can_I_use too, but that's an our internal thing not visible from userspace).
fxsr and xmm in /proc/cpuinfo in 2.4.0, 2.4.1-pre[12], and 2.2.* means "cpu_has" and _not_ "can_I_use".
So anybody using the fxsr and xmm in the "flags" row of /proc/cpuinfo as the "can_I_use" will break in any kernel before 2.4.1-pre3.
Anybody reading fxsr and xmm as "cpu_has" will break in any kernel after 2.4.1-pre2.
This all I meant when I said that 2.4.1-pre3 broke /proc/cpuinfo.
I'd prefer if /proc/cpuinfo wasn't broken. That's all.
Andrea - 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/
|  |