From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1E3gNr-0005qp-Tj for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:44:08 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E3gNq-0005p1-7v for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:44:06 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1E3gNm-0005oO-Tx for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:44:03 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E3gJO-0003uo-6t for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:39:30 -0400 Received: from [212.43.237.68] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1E3g7z-0006zJ-UM for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:27:44 -0400 Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B63FF65CA4 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:12:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by ASSP-nospam ; 12 Aug 05 20:12:34 -0000 From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:11:30 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <200508071939.45278.okuji@enbug.org> <200508111558.11633.okuji@enbug.org> <42FB6506.8050302@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <42FB6506.8050302@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508122211.30478.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: GRUB 1.90 is released X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:44:06 -0000 On Thursday 11 August 2005 16:47, Vladimir Serbinenko wrote: > Has anybody tested grub2 on i386 processor? Do you think that 2 > microseconds will > invalidate the cache if processor is waiting? Do you mean 80386? Of course, no. I don't have such an old CPU. AFAIK, this problem may happen only in a certain model of 80386, and there is no way to make sure to invalidate the cache in 80386. So we have nothing to do with this. BTW, why do you say 2 microseconds? Where does this come from? Okuji