Re: [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 02:14:53 +0200 (MEST)
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > >  
> > > > > Use the faster conditional calls for F00F bug handling in do_page_fault.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I guess this means that CONDCALL will be enabled on pretty much all i386,
> > > > in which case making the whole feature Kconfigurable is starting to look
> > > > marginal.
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps a better approach would have to made this change dependent upon
> > > > CONDCALL, rather than forcing it on.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Do you mean making X86_F00F_BUG depend on COND_CALL instead of selecting
> > > it ?
> > 
> > yup
> 
> X86_F00F_BUG needs to be enabled in all kernels capable of booting on
> P5 class machines, whether or not some obscure CONFIG_COND_CALL thingy
> is enabled or not. X86_F00F_BUG is not some optional optimisation, it's
> an essential workaround for a serious hardware bug.
> 
> Therefore it seems select rather than depend is called for.

Nope.

CONFIG_COND_CALL=n	-> 	do f00f handling the present way
CONFIG_COND_CALL=y	-> 	do f00f handling the new, fast-n-fancy way


Because I don't think everyone will want to drag all this cond_call stuff
into their kernel just for slightly faster f00f handling.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/