On 20/05/2020 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> For lbr_tsx_fixup_check() simply name a few more specific errata numbers.
>
> For bdf93_fixup_check(), however, more models are affected. Oddly enough
> despite being the same model and stepping, the erratum is listed for Xeon
> E3 but not its Core counterp
On 20/05/2020 16:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.05.2020 16:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 20/05/2020 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -2895,15 +2897,26 @@ static void __init lbr_tsx_fixup_check(v
>>> static void __init bdf93_fixup_check(void)
>> Seeing as this is no longer just BDF93, how about le
On 20.05.2020 16:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/05/2020 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -2895,15 +2897,26 @@ static void __init lbr_tsx_fixup_check(v
>> static void __init bdf93_fixup_check(void)
>
> Seeing as this is no longer just BDF93, how about ler_tsx_fixup_check() ?
I did consider renam
On 20/05/2020 13:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> For lbr_tsx_fixup_check() simply name a few more specific errata numbers.
>
> For bdf93_fixup_check(), however, more models are affected. Oddly enough
> despite being the same model and stepping, the erratum is listed for Xeon
> E3 but not its Core counterp
For lbr_tsx_fixup_check() simply name a few more specific errata numbers.
For bdf93_fixup_check(), however, more models are affected. Oddly enough
despite being the same model and stepping, the erratum is listed for Xeon
E3 but not its Core counterpart. With this it's of course also uncertain
whet
