:-)
> No, I didn't mean to break it, I just got the ordering confused _again_.
I'm not sure, but it looks like the F00F workaround gets only enabled for
one CPU, when we do smp_begin() before check_bugs(). So it makes sense,
when people see that the first start of a f00f trigger program gives
illegal instruction while the second one hangs the machine. When we do
smp_begin() all of the processors get started, but check_bugs() only
reload the idt for the boot processor in trap_init_f00f_bug(), right ?
> I'll just switch the check_bugs things around again and be red in the
> face. Sorry,
no problem. But it might be better to leave it the way it is in 2.1.120
and stick in my patch.
Thomas.
--
See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux,
you have to be a sneaky bastard too ;-)
[Linus Torvalds in <4rikft$7g5@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI>]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html