Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

"Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
> 
> > In other words, I'd like to see a reason for making any vendor-specific
> > determinations, and if so, they should ideally be centralized to the CPU
> > feature-determination code.
> 
>  It would be hard to decide how to classify it.  It's something like "the
> CPU has a local APIC that we know how to handle in the non-MPS system".
> 
>  It might be viable just to delete the test altogether, though and just
> trap #GP(0) on the MSR access.  For the sake of simplicity.  If a problem
> with a system ever arizes, we may handle it then.
> 
>  Note that we still have to choose appropriate vendor-specific PeMo
> handling and an event for the NMI watchdog anyway.
> 

Right... if that is the case then it seems reasonable.

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/