Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 12:43:21 EST

Next message: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "Re: suspecious ide hdparm results with 2.4.1 (and a minor capacity question)"
Previous message: Chris Mason: "Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: Apparent instability of reiserfs on 2.4.1"
In reply to: Mikael Pettersson: "Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering"
Next in thread: Maciej W. Rozycki: "Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>
> > In other words, I'd like to see a reason for making any vendor-specific
> > determinations, and if so, they should ideally be centralized to the CPU
> > feature-determination code.
>
> The Pentium 4 has a local APIC. It's not 100% compatible with the P6, and
> you sometimes have to know which one you're poking. CPUID returns the
> APIC feature bit. Should we mask its APIC capability? Of course not.
>

What's so "of course" about it? It mostly depends on how ugly the
determination is.

-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
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/

Next message: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "Re: suspecious ide hdparm results with 2.4.1 (and a minor capacity question)"
Previous message: Chris Mason: "Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: Apparent instability of reiserfs on 2.4.1"
In reply to: Mikael Pettersson: "Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering"
Next in thread: Maciej W. Rozycki: "Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 21:00:27 EST