From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760871AbYEHCRi (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 22:17:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756898AbYEHCR1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 22:17:27 -0400 Received: from smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ([213.51.146.200]:54812 "EHLO smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756065AbYEHCR0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 22:17:26 -0400 Message-ID: <482262C7.9020307@keyaccess.nl> Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 04:17:43 +0200 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Linus Torvalds , 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 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> <4822614B.6080706@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4822614B.6080706@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08-05-08 04:11, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Indeed it wasn't, and at least I have no interest of maintaining what is > in effect an in-kernel version of x86info(1). > > *Certainly* I don't want anything like this crap: > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c >> index 277446c..6ee3efb 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static int pat_known_cpu(void) >> if (!pat_wc_enabled) >> return 0; >> >> - if (cpu_has_pat) >> + if (cpu_has_pat && cpu_has_pat_good) >> return 1; if (cpu_has_pat_good) would have been the exact same as now. Feel free to drop the cpu_has_pat one but it's not crap. That whitelist thing checks nothing -- and things like CONSTANT_TSC also don't, so I didn't make the feature itself conditional. It has but one call site anyway. Rene.