From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753727AbYIHJik (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 05:38:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752682AbYIHJic (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 05:38:32 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:55480 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752207AbYIHJib (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 05:38:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:42:05 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux@sandersweb.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , the arch/x86 maintainers , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [BUG] x86 kenel won't boot under Virtual PC Message-ID: <20080908094205.GD26079@one.firstfloor.org> References: <200808311422.12525.linux@sandersweb.net> <200809071922.32974.linux@sandersweb.net> <48C48467.40703@zytor.com> <200809072249.17280.linux@sandersweb.net> <48C4A46B.90705@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48C4A46B.90705@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Under that logic we shouldn't even have CPU configurables, since you Just for optimization. > want it to "just work" whatever crap you're running on. That is EXACTLY > what CONFIG_X86_GENERIC means, and the fact that any particular At least when I introduced X86_GENERIC it was just an optimization, not a requirement. That is the kernel pretty much always did "just work" (with only a very few exceptions like PAE vs non PAE) on all CPUs. The CPU configs also just specified optimizations, not correctness. The code for all CPUs used to be always there. X86_GENERIC was mostly just to do things like always use the largest cache alignment. I think someone changed that recently, but imho that wasn't an improvement. As you can see it just causes endless support problems. > distribution is broken with respect to not enabling it is a bug in that > distribution, and not grounds for breaking the upstream kernel. Well it's more like that you guys changed the semantics without warnings the distributions. I'm not sure you can blame Debian for that. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com