On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:36:40 +0200 "Attilio Rao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mentioned: > > Mmm, I think that a better approach would be refering to different > MSRs tables for pentium, p6 and Pentium 4 (if I remind correctly they > are which show differences). It is more extensible, portable and > possibly cleaner (I.E: you could port automatically to openbsd/netbsd, > adding new table and make minimum modifies, etc.)
I don't agree. We have a bunch of i386-compatible cpu vendors (Winbond, Cyrix, Intel, AMD, etc) and several models for each of them. Each have specific MSR set available. Thus, in that case we should add a table per each cpu model into the code, that seems to me bogus, since it will grow codesize dramatically and will not save from #GP faults in case of 'degenerate' cpu models. That is, it requires fault handlers anyway. Current implementation works well providing MSR access to userland and it garantee no kernel faults at all. It reports MSR reading errors to userland too. Furthermore, porting to other BSD isn't a goal. -- Stanislav Sedov MBSD labs, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Россия, Москва http://mbsd.msk.ru -------------------------------------------------------------------- If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- A. Einstein -------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP fingerprint: F21E D6CC 5626 9609 6CE2 A385 2BF5 5993 EB26 9581
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
