Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759693AbYCYTRr (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:17:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757955AbYCYTRj (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:17:39 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:60003 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754686AbYCYTRi (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:17:38 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,553,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="539822452" Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:08:52 -0700 From: Venki Pallipadi To: Yinghai Lu Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , kernel list , suresh.b.siddha@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: pat cpu feature bit setting for known cpus Message-ID: <20080325190851.GC30998@linux-os.sc.intel.com> References: <200803242324.35357.yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> <47E9003B.5010002@zytor.com> <86802c440803251103taf4c8f2mb674c3d17f3c2345@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86802c440803251103taf4c8f2mb674c3d17f3c2345@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1490 Lines: 35 On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:03:37AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:38 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > [PATCH] x86: pat cpu feature bit setting for known cpus > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu > > > > OK, note previous question: what is the motivation for having this as a > > whitelist (as opposed to a blacklist)? > > Venkatesh could tell? Main reason for white-list at this point is not to be side-tracked by real or potential erratas on older CPUs. Focussing on getting the support for this feature on current and future CPUs. If older CPUs have survived all these days without this feature, they should be doing OK. Other reason being the amount of testing we get on those older systems. I mean, any regression on some specific CPU is hard to find unless it is being tested or someone audits all the errata documents to prepare the blacklist (Unless we want to have big blacklist which is just !current_whitelist). We do not have any self test that can detect and report any problematic CPUs that we can add to the blacklist. Having said that, if there is a need for this on older CPUs, I am OK with having this as a blacklist. Thanks, Venki -- 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/