Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-21 Thread Rik van Riel
On 16 Oct 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > By author:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > > but intel refuse to guarantee they wont produce an actual '786' class > > > CPU. > > > > Worry about that if/when it happens ? > > Dare one gues

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-18 Thread Thomas Molina
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote: > It's RNCD: Roman Numeral Coded Decimal. The new standard for > information interchange. A new proprietary feature of Intel > CPU's that will bring new high performance web sites to the reach > of the masses! Now you can access these special custom

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-18 Thread Mark Salisbury
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 08:14:58AM -0400, Mark Salisbury wrote: > > > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > > > Why Intel chose family 15 is still beyond me though. > > > > IV is 15

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-18 Thread Markus Pfeiffer
"Mike A. Harris" wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > > >> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > >> > > Why Intel chose family 15 is still beyond me though. > > > >> > IV is 15 if you just translate th

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-18 Thread Mike A. Harris
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Michael H. Warfield wrote: >> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > >> > > Why Intel chose family 15 is still beyond me though. > >> > IV is 15 if you just translate the symbols, but ignore the meaning >> > eith

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-17 Thread Michael H. Warfield
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:12:39AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 08:14:58AM -0400, Mark Salisbury wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > Why Intel chose family 15 is still beyond me though. > >

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-17 Thread David Weinehall
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 08:14:58AM -0400, Mark Salisbury wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > Why Intel chose family 15 is still beyond me though. > > IV is 15 if you just translate the symbols, but ignore the meaning >

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-17 Thread davej
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote: > >Well as Intel isn't even shipping P4 samples yet, most of this is just > >guesswork based upon preliminary datasheets. I wouldn't be surprised > >if we find other fun things to work around when we start seeing > >silicone in use. > > Heck, you don't

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-17 Thread Mark Salisbury
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Why Intel chose family 15 is still beyond me though. IV is 15 if you just translate the symbols, but ignore the meaning either that or someone was smoking alot of crack. -- /*-

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-17 Thread Mike A. Harris
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >*grin* > >Well as Intel isn't even shipping P4 samples yet, most of this is just >guesswork based upon preliminary datasheets. I wouldn't be surprised >if we find other fun things to work around when we start seeing >silicone in use. Heck, you don't

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-16 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By author:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > but intel refuse to guarantee they wont produce an actual '786' class > > CPU. > > Worry about that if/when it happens ? > Dare one guess the 786 is actually the Itanic in x86 mode?

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-16 Thread davej
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Alan, same diff for 2.2 ? > What about the other proc stuff. This will report a 1586, type 15 cpu and > stuff Then it needs to be fixed there also. > but intel refuse to guarantee they wont produce an actual '786' class > CPU. Worry about that if/when i

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-16 Thread davej
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote: > Hmmm.. Wonder if this might be affecting my problem > I compile on a Pentium for a 486. Worked but after I applied the FreeS/WAN > pathes, now it won't boot on the 486's (immediate reboot, on 'now booting the > kern..' message) Doubled checked

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-16 Thread Alan Cox
> > --- linux-2.4.0-test10-pre3/include/asm-i386/bugs.h.~1~ Sat Sep 9 12:49:40 >2000 > > +++ linux-2.4.0-test10-pre3/include/asm-i386/bugs.h Mon Oct 16 23:14:42 2000 > > @@ -426,5 +426,5 @@ > > check_pentium_f00f(); > > #endif > > check_cyrix_coma(); > > - system_utsname.machine[1

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-16 Thread Michael Peddemors
Hmmm.. Wonder if this might be affecting my problem I compile on a Pentium for a 486. Worked but after I applied the FreeS/WAN pathes, now it won't boot on the 486's (immediate reboot, on 'now booting the kern..' message) Doubled checked the make outputs, and config's and it says it is 486 b

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-16 Thread davej
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Since initial Pentium IV processors have model 0 according to Intel's > Pentium IV supplement to the CPUID manual (AP-485), this code may > actually deduce that a Pentium IV has the bug (if the mask < 3). Valid point. I copied the same fix from 2.2

Re: test10-pre3

2000-10-16 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > - pre3: > ... >- Dave Jones: x86 setup fixes (recognize Pentium IV etc). And then in test10-pre3 we find the following code added to arch/i386/kernel/setup.c: + /* Pentium IV. */ + if (c->x86 == 15) { +