Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:29:21 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robert@schwebel.de
Subject: Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] better i386 CPU selection
Message-ID: <20030908142920.GB28062@fs.tum.de>
References: <20030907112813.GQ14436@fs.tum.de> <20030908020812.3A48F2C186@lists.samba.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030908020812.3A48F2C186@lists.samba.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1269
Lines: 39

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:46:30AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <20030907112813.GQ14436@fs.tum.de> you write:
> > - @Rusty:
> >   what's your opinion on making MODULE_PROC_FAMILY in 
> >   include/asm-i386/module.h some kind of bitmask?
> 
> The current one is readable, which is good, and Linus asked for it,
> which makes it kinda moot.  And really, if you compile a module with
> M686 and insert it in a kernel with M586, *WHATEVER* scheme you we use
> for CPU seleciton, I want the poor user to have to use "modprobe -f".

I agree, my thoughts go in the direction

bit 0 CPU_386
bit 1 CPU_486
bit 2 CPU_586
...

And you should need a "modprobe -f" if the bitmask in the module differs 
from the bitmask in the kernel.

> Hope that clarifies,
> Rusty.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/