From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Oct 29 6:11:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de (ipamzlx.Physik.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.180.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603BE37B4C5 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipamzlx.Physik.Uni-Mainz.DE (ipamzlx.Physik.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.180.54]) by ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e9TED1125260 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:13:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ohartman@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:13:01 +0100 (CET) From: "O. Hartmann" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: F00F-HACK still necessary? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dear sirs. As I read the changes received from CVSup today I realized the changes in the explanation of the kernel oprion NO_F00F_HACK. We use an SMP system with two 866EB Coppermines, so option is i686_CPU in the kernel. My question is simple: do I still need to let NO_F00F_HACK undefined? For AMD CPUs we could define this to remove the hack, do we sould remove it from i686 CPUs also? Thanks in advance, Oliver - MfG O. Hartmann ------------------------------------------------------------------- ohartman@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de Klimadatenserver-Abteilung des IPA IT Netz- und Systembetreuung Johannes Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz Becherweg 21 D-55099 Mainz BRD/Germany Tel: +496131/3924662 FAX: +496131/3923532 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message