Re: [BUG] x86 kenel won't boot under Virtual PC



On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, david@xxxxxxx wrote:

I always understood the CPU selection to be "this CPU and ones compatible with
it will work, others won't" unless generic was enabled.

No.

Read the help text..

Yes, we care about features that MATTER. But if compiles start using
features that don't really matter, and make a specific kernel _too_
specific, then we need to reign in the madness.

IOW, it's a balance. On one hand, yes, the uarch makes sense. On the
other, it's just stupid to have to worry about details that don't
realistically make any difference at all - except whether the machine
works or not.

And yes, we could just put this up as a Virtual PC bug. It clearly is. But
in the end, it _still_ all boils down to a balance between "do we actually
win anything by using NOPL statically" vs "do we lose anything by being
too damn inconvenient".

Linus
--
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/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wild speculations about the "other" factors
    ... I think it does - as there is unmet demand for features that can't be ... That's why it is a balance. ... There will be unmet demands no matter ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Wild speculations about the "other" factors
    ... I think it does - as there is unmet demand for features that can't be ... That's why it is a balance. ... There will be unmet demands no matter ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)