From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 5 12:30:31 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D08F106568F for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:30:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mdounin@mdounin.ru) Received: from mdounin.cust.ramtel.ru (mdounin.cust.ramtel.ru [81.19.69.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C338FC13 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mdounin.ru (mdounin.cust.ramtel.ru [81.19.69.81]) by mdounin.cust.ramtel.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B39317038; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:30:29 +0300 (MSK) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:30:29 +0300 From: Maxim Dounin To: Kostik Belousov Message-ID: <20091105123028.GK1144@mdounin.ru> References: <4e6cba830911050302k56bed35aj5ca9fa16379ab325@mail.gmail.com> <20091105112834.GR2331@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <86fx8tfau7.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20091105120034.GS2331@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091105120034.GS2331@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Attilio Rao , Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav , Giovanni Trematerra , FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: [PATCH] AMD Opteron Rev. E hack X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:30:31 -0000 Hello! On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 02:00:34PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:52:00PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > Kostik Belousov writes: > > > I think there is no much sense in printing that hack in unused; > > > instead, you should print info when option is enabled and vulnerable > > > CPU is detected. > > > > We should *definitely* print a warninhg when a vulnerable CPU is > > detected and the option is *not* enabled. How do you justify not > > telling the user that you know the machine will crash as soon as he runs > > 'make buildworld' with a high -j value? > > We do not do this for other cpu bugs workarounds, why this should be > different. Well, probably is't a good idea to do so? Something like NetBSD's sys/arch/x86/x86/errata.c seems to be right way to go. > Besides, there were no confirmed reports of this happening > in field (I mean the bug manifestation, not make -j panicing or hanging > machine :). http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=26081 Maxim Dounin