Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759130AbYFQPbu (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:31:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757381AbYFQPbn (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:31:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:36342 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756833AbYFQPbm (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:31:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:24:50 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Natalie Protasevich , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc6-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 Message-ID: <20080617152450.GB8063@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Natalie Protasevich , "David S. Miller" References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2141 Lines: 47 On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:52AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > From what you have written it looks the dependency should actually be: > > > > > > depends on !M386 && !M486 && !M586 && !M586TSC && !M586MMX > > > > > > as none of the pre-Pentium-Pro processors had the PAE feature (I am not > > > sure about non-Intel implementations, so the case of M586 would have to be > > > investigated). > > > > Yes, it's the non-intel ones that would keep me from saying !M586. > > > > For intel, PAE was a PPro feature (at least officially, as you point out), > > but I do not know about various other manufacturers. From personal > > experience, the line between Pentium and PPro features doesn't tend to be > > totally black-and-white (although I suspect that when it comes to PAE it > > _may_ be). > > Well, PAE is quite a significant block to implement and Intel kept it > hidden until they published the long awaited PentiumPro manual sometime in > 1996. I am fairly sure the K5 did not implement it (it may have had PSE > and VME, especially in the later revisions) and Google does not show up > any Cyrix processors with PAE. I may have a K5 manual somewhere, so I can > see if I can verify it. Even the K6 didn't have PAE. The Athlon was AMD's first CPU that had it. > Please also note these processors tried to compete with Intel on the > desktop market where 4GB of RAM was completely unreasonable in late 90s. > I think unless someone can recall a counter-example, it can be safely > assumed these chips did not have the PAE. We could try to extend the > dependency and see if anybody screams. I agree. To the best of my knowledge (and looking through output of x86info from lots of old CPUs), Intel had the only CPUs with PAE in that era. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- 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/