> It won't fail on other CPU's. The bug is, as far as I can tell, in > get_model_name(), > > cpuid(0x80000001, &dummy, &dummy, &dummy, &(c->x86_capability)); Dave Jones fixed this one - for intel we don't use get_model_name() blindly now. I can see how some earlier 2.2.18pre's would have blown up, but 2.2.17 would (fortunately) be ok. Thanks > Notice how we overwrite the x86_capability state with whatever we read > from the extended register 0x80000001. So we overwrite the _real_ > capabilities that we got the right way in head.S. Yep Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Frank Davis
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Andre Hedrick
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Lyle Coder
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Linus Torvalds
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Linus Torvalds
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Linus Torvalds
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Brian Pomerantz
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 kernel
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Simon Kirby
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Brian Pomerantz
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Robert M. Love
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Frank Davis
- Re: Pentium 4 and 2.4/2.5 Alan Cox