Re: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch
From: Jamie Lokier (jamie_at_shareable.org)
Date: 10/01/03
- Previous message: Jamie Lokier: "[PATCH] For testing/scrutiny: futex locking fix against 2.6.0-test6"
- In reply to: Nakajima, Jun: "RE: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch"
- Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch"
- Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:38:33 +0100 To: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> Yes. It would kind to tell the pilot about the errata of the engine (and
> refuse to start), rather than telling him that the engine might break
> down anytime after the takeoff.
Doesn't refusing to boot seem to heavy handed for this bug? The buggy
CPUs have been around for many years (it is practically the entire AMD
line for the last 4 years or so), and nobody in userspace has
complained about the 2.4 behaviour so far. (Linux 2.4 behaviour is,
of course, to ignore the errata).
ps. Why are we all saying errata - isn't erratum good enough? :)
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Jamie Lokier: "[PATCH] For testing/scrutiny: futex locking fix against 2.6.0-test6"
- In reply to: Nakajima, Jun: "RE: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch"
- Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch"
- Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Mutilated form of Andi Kleen's AMD prefetch errata patch"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
