Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5

["Lyle Coder" <x_coder@hotmail.com>]

Alan,
are you saying that rep;nop is not needed in the spinlocks? (because they
are for P4)

Thanks
Lyle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Andre Hedrick" <andre@linux-ide.org>
Cc: "Frank Davis" <fdavis112@juno.com>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5


> > Not to worry, some of us are working with the 'I' guys to do proper P4
> > detection.
>
> Be careful with the intel patches. The ones I've seen so far tried to call
the
> cpu 'if86' breaking several tools that do cpu model checking off uname.
They
> didnt fix the 2GHz CPU limit, they use 'rep nop' in the locks which is
> explicitly 'undefined behaviour' for non intel processors and they use the
> TSC without checking it had one.
>
> Hopefully they have improved since
>
> Alan
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/