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, 30 May 2002 20:15:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:15:04 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:15891 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:15:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3CF6C009.6040206@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:12:57 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/00200205 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leif Sawyer CC: Lista Linux-Kernel , "J.A. Magallon" , Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 cpu selection (first hack) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Leif Sawyer wrote: >Dave Jones replied to > > >>Jeff Garzik who wrote: >> >> >> >>>[I] wonder if making the CPU features selectable is useful? >>>i.e. provide an actual config option for MMX memcpy, F00F bug, >>>WP, etc. Normal (current) logic is to look at the cpu selected, >>>and deduce these options. >>> >>> >>J.A's comment that most people compiling kernels shouldn't >>need to know what bugs their CPU has before they pick it is >>a good one imo >> >> >> > >Perhaps a comprimise could be made? > >Envision a config option where you would have 'expert' choices >for MMX, FOOF, WP, etc. > > Well... let's rein in the horses. Before we go too far down this road, I would rather that we just get one thing, individual cpu selection, correct. After that, we can look at making processor features selectable, or grouping cpus based on "expert" details like lack of WP or supporting TSC. Jeff