From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Feb 28 1:27:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from issv0171.isis.de (issv0171.isis.de [195.158.131.223]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B33037B402 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 28279 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Feb 2002 09:27:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO diana) ([195.158.146.92]) (envelope-sender ) by 0 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Feb 2002 09:27:24 -0000 Received: from diana (127.0.0.1) by diana (172.25.25.7) with smtp ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:27:58 +0100 Posted-and-Mailed: no Subject: Re: Pentium and NO_F00F_HACK = kernel panic From: Johann Frisch References: <20020227213355.EAAC837B405@hub.freebsd.org> <200202280123.RAA79623@star-one.liberator.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Xnews/4.11.30 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Lines: 12 Message-Id: <20020228092726.2B33037B402@hub.freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:27:26 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 28 Feb 2002, you wrote in internal.freebsd.stable: > If you have a Pentium with the bug, then you don't want this > option. By doing this you've eliminated the code that makes you > unsusceptible to the bug. (Stated another way for clarity, the > "F00F hack" works around the CPU bug; the NO_F00F_HACK option > disables the workaround.) I knew that and I have no problem using this option. I am just curious if this kernel behaviour is intented or not? -- MfG, Johann To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message