Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:06:14 +0000
From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: kernel@mikebell.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: /proc/mtrr in 2.6
Message-ID: <20031119170614.GB27802@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, kernel@mikebell.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20031119051233.GB1485@mikebell.org> <20031119161044.GA27802@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20031119161044.GA27802@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1308
Lines: 35

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:10:44PM +0000, Dave Jones wrote:
 > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:12:34PM -0800, kernel@mikebell.org wrote:
 >  > In 2.6, having /proc/mtrr support in a kernel run on a system which
 >  > lacks MTRR support (like my crusoe) results in /proc/mtrr existing, but
 >  > giving EIO if you try to read it. On 2.4, it is detected as not existing
 >  > and not created. Is this the new intentional behaviour, or just a bug?
 > 
 > Need something like this perhaps ?

Better yet, get the logic right..


--- linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mtrr/if.c~	Wed Nov 19 17:04:50 2003
+++ linux-2.5/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mtrr/if.c	Wed Nov 19 17:05:29 2003
@@ -352,6 +352,14 @@
 
 static int __init mtrr_if_init(void)
 {
+	struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data;
+
+	if ((!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MTRR)) &&
+		(!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_K6_MTRR)) &&
+		(!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_CYRIX_ARR)) &&
+		(!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_CENTAUR_MCR)))
+	return -ENODEV;
+
 	proc_root_mtrr =
 	    create_proc_entry("mtrr", S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, &proc_root);
 	if (proc_root_mtrr) {

-
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/