Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:05:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:05:20 -0400 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([209.10.41.242]:44036 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:05:11 -0400 Subject: Re: missing mxcsr initialization To: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:42:03 +0100 (BST) Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), andrea@suse.de (Andrea Arcangeli), dledford@redhat.com (Doug Ledford), paubert@iram.es (Gabriel Paubert), mingo@redhat.com, gareth@valinux.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Linus Torvalds" at Oct 26, 2000 10:35:25 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Go back. Read ym email. Realize that you do this ONCE. At setup time. (I've got about 2000 to read after this jaunt so I may have missed some) > You can even split SEP into SEPOLD and SEPNEW, and _always_ just test one > bit. You should not have to test stepping levels in normal use: that > invariably causes problems when there are more than one CPU that has some > feature. Agree > if (vendor == intel && stepping < 5) { > ... > } > > and it appears to work again, until it turns out that Cyrix has the same > issue, and then it ends up being the test from hell, where different > vendor tests all clash, and it gets increasingly difficult to add a new > thing later on sanely. And you end up with mtrr.c > No thank you. We'll just require fixed feature flags. Which can be turned > on as the features are enabled. That seems sensible - 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/