From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763784AbYEHPm6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 11:42:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754140AbYEHPmu (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 11:42:50 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:45691 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751352AbYEHPms (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 11:42:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:32:50 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Andi Kleen Cc: Rene Herman , Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Adrian Bunk , Yinghai Lu , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce a new Linux defined feature flag for PAT support Message-ID: <20080508163250.4c7692c6@core> In-Reply-To: <482302A3.3010405@firstfloor.org> References: <48210A71.1060409@keyaccess.nl> <86802c440805061939q39ff5500h3c9e229ecbc6b2e6@mail.gmail.com> <20080507124650.GD29935@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <48221AE3.6020602@keyaccess.nl> <482233F0.7040000@zytor.com> <48224318.8020209@keyaccess.nl> <48224361.5080102@zytor.com> <48224507.8010102@keyaccess.nl> <48224930.9030901@keyaccess.nl> <48225DEC.2030502@keyaccess.nl> <878wylayiw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4822F4A1.2030602@keyaccess.nl> <482302A3.3010405@firstfloor.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > For old CPUs it is actually ok (after all they worked for years without > PAT), I just don't like it for new CPUs. It's a bad idea there and > in the x86 world it is a reasonable expectation that CPU features > generally work. Agreed 100%. We should default to assuming newer processors work. That will be true in almost if not all cases anyway, and since it'll bite anyone at Intel/AMD/.. testing new CPU steppings when it is on by default any problem cases won't be leaving the labs. Alan