Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:06:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:06:28 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:4356 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:06:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3A818D21.6619FE3C@transmeta.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 10:00:01 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Transmeta Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, sv, no, da, es, fr, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: Petr Vandrovec , mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mikpe@csd.uu.se Subject: Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Maciej W. Rozycki" 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. > > It would be hard to decide how to classify it. It's something like "the > CPU has a local APIC that we know how to handle in the non-MPS system". > > It might be viable just to delete the test altogether, though and just > trap #GP(0) on the MSR access. For the sake of simplicity. If a problem > with a system ever arizes, we may handle it then. > > Note that we still have to choose appropriate vendor-specific PeMo > handling and an event for the NMI watchdog anyway. > Right... if that is the case then it seems reasonable. -hpa -- at work, 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/