Re: [PATCH 7 of 20] ipath - misc driver support code

["Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@pathscale.com>]

On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 15:13 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:

> This is kind of theoritical, but it seems to me that it would be safer
> to write this as
> 
> 	int ipath_unordered_wc(void)
> 	{
> 		return boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD;
> 	}
> 
> after all, Via is probably going to have an x86-64 CPU one of these
> days, and I doubt you've checked that their WC flush is ordered.

It's purely a performance optimisation.  Since we tune very closely to
each CPU, there's no point right now in sort-of-tuning for a CPU that
doesn't yet exist :-)

	<b