Hi Linus.
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Tim Wright wrote:
>>> Which is all fine, but maybe the kernel really ought to detect
>>> that problem and complain at boot time?
>>>
>>> Or does that happen already?
>> There was a similar thread to this recently. The
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > If we do that I'd rather see a make autoconfig that does the lot from
> > proc/pci etc 8)
>
> Good point. No point in adding a new config option, we should just have a
> new configurator instead. Of course, it can't handle many of the
> questions, so it would still have
Hi!
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 11:36:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > There was a similar thread to this recently. The issue is that if you
> > choose the wrong processor type, you may not even be able to complain.
>
> Hmm ... I think I can see ways around that (essentially similar to t
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > One thing we _could_ potentially do is to simplify the CPU selection a
> > > bit, and make it a two-stage process. Basically have a
> > >
> > > bool "Optimize for current CPU" CONFIG_CPU_CURRENT
> > >
> > > which most peo
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > One thing we _could_ potentially do is to simplify the CPU selection a
> > bit, and make it a two-stage process. Basically have a
> >
> > bool "Optimize for current CPU" CONFIG_CPU_CURRENT
> >
> > which most people who just want to get the best ker
> One thing we _could_ potentially do is to simplify the CPU selection a
> bit, and make it a two-stage process. Basically have a
>
> bool "Optimize for current CPU" CONFIG_CPU_CURRENT
>
> which most people who just want to get the best kernel would use. Less
> confusion that way.
If we d
Tim Wright writes:
> There was a similar thread to this recently. The issue is that if you
> choose the wrong processor type, you may not even be able to complain.
An illegal opcode handler could deal with the problem.
It could crudely emulate just enough to make printk work.
-
To unsubscribe fr
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Wright) wrote on 24.12.00 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 11:36:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > There was a similar thread to this recently. The issue is that if you
> > choose the wrong processor type, you may not even be able to comp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Wright) wrote on 24.12.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 11:36:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> There was a similar thread to this recently. The issue is that if you
> choose the wrong processor type, you may not even be able to complain.
Hmm ... I
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001224 16:27]:
> One thing we _could_ potentially do is to simplify the CPU selection a
> bit, and make it a two-stage process. Basically have a
>
> bool "Optimize for current CPU" CONFIG_CPU_CURRENT
>
> which most people who just want to get the best
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 02:25:54PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Indeed. Some of the issues end up just becoming compiler flags, which
> means that anything that uses C is "tainted" by the processor choice. And
> happily there isn't all that much non-C in the kernel any more.
>
> One thing we
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Tim Wright wrote:
> >
> > Which is all fine, but maybe the kernel really ought to detect that
> > problem and complain at boot time?
> >
> > Or does that happen already?
>
> There was a similar thread to this recently. The issue is that if you
> choose the wrong process
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 11:36:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 23.12.00 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, michael chen wrote:
> > > I found that when I compiled the 2.4 kernel with the option
> > > of Pentium III or Pe
Hi!
> diff -Nur linux/include/asm-i386/system.h linux.new/include/asm-i386/system.h
> --- linux/include/asm-i386/system.h Mon Dec 11 19:26:39 2000
> +++ linux.new/include/asm-i386/system.h Sat Dec 23 16:06:01 2000
> @@ -274,7 +274,14 @@
> #ifndef CONFIG_X86_XMM
> #define mb() __asm__ __vo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 23.12.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, michael chen wrote:
> > I found that when I compiled the 2.4 kernel with the option
> > of Pentium III or Pentium 4 on a Celeron's PC, it could cause the
> > system hang at very
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 10:45:14AM +0100, Jeffrey Rose wrote:
> I also have a Celeron 600 in my Compaq 5000, but even with the output
> below, I am not sure this is what Linus is talking about! I believe
> Linus is trying to say, "We HAVE configurations set for that specific
> architecture, so ple
Erik Mouw wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 09:21:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > A Celeron isn't a PIII, and you shouldn't tell the configure that it is.
>
> Well, some Celerons are. My laptop has a Celeron with a Coppermine
> core, so it is PIII based. Here is the output from /proc/cpui
> > I found that when I compiled the 2.4 kernel with the option
> > of Pentium III or Pentium 4 on a Celeron's PC, it could cause the
> > system hang at very beginning boot stage, and I found the problem
> > is cause by the fact that Intel Celeron doesn't have a real memory
>
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 09:21:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> A Celeron isn't a PIII, and you shouldn't tell the configure that it is.
Well, some Celerons are. My laptop has a Celeron with a Coppermine
core, so it is PIII based. Here is the output from /proc/cpuinfo:
processor : 0
vend
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, michael chen wrote:
> I found that when I compiled the 2.4 kernel with the option
> of Pentium III or Pentium 4 on a Celeron's PC, it could cause the
> system hang at very beginning boot stage, and I found the problem
> is cause by the fact that Intel Ce
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 05:24:43PM +0800, michael chen wrote:
> I found that when I compiled the 2.4 kernel with the option
> of Pentium III or Pentium 4 on a Celeron's PC, it could cause the
> system hang at very beginning boot stage, and I found the problem
> is cause by the
Hi,
I found that when I compiled the 2.4 kernel with the option
of Pentium III or Pentium 4 on a Celeron's PC, it could cause the
system hang at very beginning boot stage, and I found the problem
is cause by the fact that Intel Celeron doesn't have a real memory
barrier,bu
22 matches
Mail list logo
