I cleaned up messages in bugs.h a little bit: Current messages suggest
that we are checking for f0 0f bug, which is simply not true - we are
only looking at CPU revision.
--- bugs.h.ofic Wed Nov 12 23:23:16 1997
+++ bugs.h Wed Nov 12 23:29:50 1997
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@
: "edx" (inp)
: "eax", "ecx", "edx", "edi" );
/* If this fails, it means that any user program may lock CPU hard. Too bad. */
- if (res != 12345678) printk( "Bad.\n" );
+ if (res != 12345678) printk( "Buggy.\n" );
else printk( "Ok.\n" );
#endif
}
@@ -178,18 +178,14 @@
/*
* Pentium and Pentium MMX
*/
- printk("checking for F00F bug ...");
if(x86==5 && !memcmp(x86_vendor_id, "GenuineIntel", 12))
{
extern void trap_init_f00f_bug(void);
- printk(KERN_INFO "\nIntel Pentium/[MMX] F0 0F bug detected - turning on workaround.\n");
+ printk(KERN_INFO "Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - trying to workaround.\n");
pentium_f00f_bug = 1;
trap_init_f00f_bug();
- } else {
- printk(KERN_INFO " no F0 0F bug in this CPU, great!\n");
- pentium_f00f_bug = 0;
- }
+ } else pentium_f00f_bug = 0;
}
__initfunc(static void check_bugs(void))
-- I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).