"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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 21:00:27 EST