From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262886AbUB0Ojo (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:39:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262890AbUB0Ojn (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:39:43 -0500 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:10513 "EHLO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262886AbUB0Ojh (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:39:37 -0500 Message-ID: <403F5921.9080008@techsource.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:50:09 -0500 From: Timothy Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: "Nakajima, Jun" , richard.brunner@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD64 References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173EA28A5@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <403E4681.20603@techsource.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> 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 Andi Kleen wrote: > Timothy Miller writes: > [snip] > >>Why did Intel decide to do that? > > > Most likely they didn't plan to, but it happened by accident > and is obscure enough to be not worth fixing. I would agree with > them that it's not worth fixing. Yes, I have come to understand that this is merely a case of Intel documenting that an "undocumented" instruction doesn't behave in a useful or consistent way. My apologies for delving into this pointless discussion.