Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:46:01 -0800 From: "Crist J . Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net> To: Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: F00F-HACK still necessary? Message-ID: <20001029134601.V75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> In-Reply-To: <39FC984F.48AA97AD@quack.kfu.com>; from nsayer@quack.kfu.com on Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 01:36:15PM -0800 References: <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com> <200010291843.e9TIhJG15929@vashon.polstra.com> <39FC984F.48AA97AD@quack.kfu.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 01:36:15PM -0800, Nick Sayer wrote: > jdp@polstra.com wrote: > > > > In article <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert - > > ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> wrote: > > > > > NO_F00F_HACK is only effective with the original Pentium. If you > > > define i686_CPU, NO_F00F_HACK is implied. > > > > Close, but not quite right. If you _don't_ define I586_CPU then > > NO_F00F_HACK is implied. > > Even if the code is in the kernel, it's not actually activated unless a > Pentium is installed, though. So the only time you really need it is > when you have an Intel Pentium that you know is NOT affected by the > bug... Right? [snip] I don't think you ever _need_ NO_F00F_HACK. However, I think the most frequent use will not be having an Intel Pentium that you know is not affected (since that is often not too easy to figure out), but rather when you have a i586 equivalent from another vendor. Only Intel hardware had the F00F bug. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001029134601.V75251>