From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Oct 29 14:29:21 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC8037B479 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id OAA20201; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:29:12 -0800 Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca(142.32.110.29) via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda20199; Sun Oct 29 14:28:53 2000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.11.0/8.9.1) id e9TMSrZ22481; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from cwsys9.cwsent.com(10.2.2.1), claiming to be "cwsys.cwsent.com" via SMTP by passer9.cwsent.com, id smtpdy22479; Sun Oct 29 14:28:11 2000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.11.1/8.9.1) id e9TMSBT02221; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:28:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200010292228.e9TMSBT02221@cwsys.cwsent.com> Received: from localhost.cwsent.com(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "cwsys" via SMTP by localhost.cwsent.com, id smtpdli2214; Sun Oct 29 14:27:52 2000 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-OS: FreeBSD 4.1.1-RELEASE X-Sender: cy To: Nick Sayer Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: F00F-HACK still necessary? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:36:15 PST." <39FC984F.48AA97AD@quack.kfu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:27:52 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <39FC984F.48AA97AD@quack.kfu.com>, Nick Sayer writes: > jdp@polstra.com wrote: > > > > In article <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert - > > ITSD Open Systems Group 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? I mean apart from the few hundred bytes of code space, if > the handler isn't installed, it's as if NO_FOOF_HACK was in there all > along. This is what I was trying to say. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message