Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2008 13:18:22 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.26, PAT and AMD family 6 |
| |
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote: > > On 07-05-08 21:39, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > > > > > > HPA asked about why they used a whitelist instead of a blacklist in [1]. > > The answer (in [2]) was that those are the CPU's that are guaranteed to > > properly support PAT (no known or potential errata). However in [3] Dean > > Gaudet complained about the AMD detection code having a limit that the Intel > > detection code did not. > > > > > > > And in that thread both HPA and Ingo Molnar -- two of the three x86 arch > > maintainers -- agreed that a whitelist is the wrong approach, with HPA > > commenting that it lead to vendor lockin. And here I am talkng to an > > Intel employee about why my entire AMD CPU family was excluded. > > > > So why is this thing now in mainline with Ingo's sign-off and not a line > > of changelog to explain it? > > > > > > > > > ^^^^^---- Here in Rene's patch... > > > > > > > Yinghai's. > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't this be better if written the same as the Intel side, ie: > > > if (c->x86 >= 0xF && (c->x86 == 6 && c->x86_model == 7)) > > > (or even with c->x86_model >= 7 ?) > > i only can access opteron Rev E, Rev F, and Quad core. So i enabled that. > > now, enable other one by one...
may add enable_pat command line, so other guys could test if their cpus are ok with PAT...
YH
| |