I believe you misunderstand my point. I specifically used the word
"reactor" rather than "bomb" because I agree that a microcode patch facility
on a processor is potentially a very useful thing. "Nuclear" refers to the
amount of power available. I feel that this proposal is to pull the
containment rods 90% out when the reactor designer says not to pull them out
more than 75%.
Of course if/when things do blow up a rebuild & restore from backup is
always possible, so the analogy has its limits...
Nathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tigran Aivazian [mailto:tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 2:34 PM
> To: Zook, Nathan
> Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu;
> hpa@transmeta.com
> Subject: Re: [patch-2.3.46-p2] P6 microcode update support
>
>
> nathan.zook@amd.com wrote:
> >
> > Umm, guys?
> >
> > This proposal disturbs me. I find the following exchange
> particularly
> > bothersome:
>
> Nathan, my patch is not a nuclear reactor - it is just a simple
> enhancement. I am not even suggesting something exotic or
> extraordinary
> - it is a well-documented Intel thing. It is a simple matter of "Intel
> chips can do it - therefore Linux should have the brains to
> make use of
> it". If it is dangerous - don't use it but don't say "don't implement
> fire because someone might burn her fingers" :)
>
> Your points may be valid wrt to whether Intel's approaches are
> better/worse than "other guys'" but that is not being discussed. That
> you should say to Intel engineers and not to Linux kernel engineers. I
> don't care what features Intel processor(s) have but if the
> features are
> there and potentially useful the kernel should support them. Period.
>
> Regards,
> Tigran.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:16 EST