Re: no problems w/2.0.35/6x86L P166 (was Re: CyrixInstead ?)

Paul Duncan (p_duncan@efn.org)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 19:02:22 -0700 (PDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
Previous message: Benjamin Redelings I: "[2.1.115] Works fine for me.... (is list down?!?!)"

[snipped]
> The fact that we both have a 6x86 166+, one is detected and one not means that
> it is worth reporting. Note again that I have a IBM 6x86 though...

I think I may have a P166L or something just slightly different. IBM
mobo for sure though (sorry, I'm at work and don't have the system in from
of me).

If we do have different models, then you're correct; it's probably a cpu
identification problem.

/*
Paul Duncan p_duncan@efn.org Indifference will be the downfall
http://www.efn.org/~p_duncan of humanity, but who cares? - fortune

"in short, all known bugs should be "I'm to blame; I wonder just who
fixed, but hey, what else is new?" made the rules up for this game."
- Linus Torvalds - nine inch nails
*/

-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

Next message: John Summerfield: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
Previous message: Benjamin Redelings I: "[2.1.115] Works fine for me.... (is list down?!?!)"