From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:58:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:58:55 -0500 Received: from havoc.daloft.com ([64.213.145.173]:22466 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:58:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:09:34 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@suse.de, alan@redhat.com, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hw_random cleanups Message-ID: <20030313200934.GA17643@gtf.org> References: <20030313184343.GA7246@gtf.org> <3E70E4B8.2010600@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E70E4B8.2010600@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:06:16PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >For x86 experts, the new cpu cap words are what needs looking over. > >For example, I wonder if storing Intel's cpuid(0x00000001) ecx > >register output is wise on older Intel cpus. I worry about garbage > >appearing there. Is that a false worry? > > > > Yes; it should be completely safe. noted > >===== arch/i386/kernel/cpu/centaur.c 1.7 vs edited ===== > >--- 1.7/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/centaur.c Tue Mar 11 21:35:40 2003 > >+++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/centaur.c Thu Mar 13 13:31:08 2003 > >@@ -256,9 +256,10 @@ > > if (cpuid_eax(0xC0000000) >= 0xC0000001) { > > set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CENTAUR_EFF, c->x86_capability); > > > > There is also no need to set a special feature bit for the existence of > the feature flags. If they are not present the additional capability > word will simply be zero. Thanks, fixed. Jeff