Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:08:25 -0500 From: "Josh Paetzel" <jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> To: "Siegbert Baude" <siegbert.baude@gmx.de>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK Message-ID: <007401bff2b8$8e6cea30$57430ace@hacker> References: <397722AD.427D36AE@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Siegbert Baude" <siegbert.baude@gmx.de> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:02 AM Subject: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK > Hi, > is this kernel option a workaround for a known Pentium bug (feature? :-) > )? > If so did Intel remove this bug in newer chips? > Or asked in a different way: Is this option still necessary for all > generations of Pentiums from Pentium 60 to Pentium III 1 GHz? > > Regards, > Siegbert > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > I accidentally switched NO_F00F_HACK and NO_MEMORY_HOLE one day and put in NO_F00F_HOLE by mistake. It's a good thing it didn't compile. Can you imagine what would happen to a FBSD box if there was no hole for the F00F to get out of? Josh To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?007401bff2b8$8e6cea30$57430ace>