From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261953AbTJAFjG (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:39:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261959AbTJAFjG (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:39:06 -0400 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:32390 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261953AbTJAFi5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:38:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:38:33 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: "Nakajima, Jun" Cc: Andrew Morton , davej@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, richard.brunner@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch Message-ID: <20031001053833.GB1131@mail.shareable.org> References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017304AFCF@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017304AFCF@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nakajima, Jun wrote: > Yes. It would kind to tell the pilot about the errata of the engine (and > refuse to start), rather than telling him that the engine might break > down anytime after the takeoff. Doesn't refusing to boot seem to heavy handed for this bug? The buggy CPUs have been around for many years (it is practically the entire AMD line for the last 4 years or so), and nobody in userspace has complained about the 2.4 behaviour so far. (Linux 2.4 behaviour is, of course, to ignore the errata). ps. Why are we all saying errata - isn't erratum good enough? :) -- Jamie