Re: Atom processor inclusion

Arjan van de Ven
2009-08-21T18:23:04Z

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/20/2009 05:33 AM, Tobias Doerffel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, 20. August 2009 12:50:29 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
>>> Yep, it looked acceptable - Tobias, do you have any
>>> updates / latest version of that patch?
>> No - it's still the improved version I posted at the end of May [1]. The
>> question is what to do with MODULE_PROC_FAMILY (CORE2 or ATOM) and the mtune-
>> fallback (generic, i686, ...)?
>>
>
> Without benchmarks, we're flying blind on that one... although in
> general, "generic" is probably best in the sense that it doesn't imply
> that anything else has been done to it.
>
> As far as MODULE_PROC_FAMILY it really comes down to if we use movbe or
> not, which I don't believe your patch does. On the other hand, I really
> think it's extremely unlikely that anyone will use modules compiled for
> a different CPU, so I'm personally fine with changing that string.
>
> That whole mechanism is kind of broken, anyway.
>

personally, I would prefer it if we did a simple hash of the WHOLE cflags,
and put that into the module version string.
Anything else is just a weak, and useless, substitute for that.

Using different CFLAGS in any shape or form should disqualify the module
as "incompatible".. and a simple hash is sufficient for that.....