On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:18:52PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > @@ -226,6 +234,15 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > > clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SEP);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > + * PAE CPUID bug: Pentium M reports no PAE but has PAE
> > > + */
> > > + if (forcepae) {
> > > + printk(KERN_WARNING "PAE forced!\n");
> > > + set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_PAE);
> > > + add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK, LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE);
> >
> > This is certainly the wrong taint flag. We'd need a new one or to
> > repurpose another one as I suggested in a previous mail.
>
> I'd suggest repurposing 'S'. Instead of 'unsafe smp', it could mean
> "out of Spec". We currently only use that flag on some ancient athlon xp,
> so there's not going to be any kind of collision.
>
> Start with the below maybe ?
>
> Dave
Patch looks fine. Is the patch I previously posted, combined with this
patch, sufficient for inclusion in the kernel? Or is there anything else
I need to do?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
