Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:30:29 +0300 From: Maxim Dounin <mdounin@mdounin.ru> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>, Giovanni Trematerra <giovanni.trematerra@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] AMD Opteron Rev. E hack Message-ID: <20091105123028.GK1144@mdounin.ru> In-Reply-To: <20091105120034.GS2331@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4e6cba830911050302k56bed35aj5ca9fa16379ab325@mail.gmail.com> <20091105112834.GR2331@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <86fx8tfau7.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20091105120034.GS2331@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 02:00:34PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:52:00PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> writes: > > > I think there is no much sense in printing that hack in unused; > > > instead, you should print info when option is enabled and vulnerable > > > CPU is detected. > > > > We should *definitely* print a warninhg when a vulnerable CPU is > > detected and the option is *not* enabled. How do you justify not > > telling the user that you know the machine will crash as soon as he runs > > 'make buildworld' with a high -j value? > > We do not do this for other cpu bugs workarounds, why this should be > different. Well, probably is't a good idea to do so? Something like NetBSD's sys/arch/x86/x86/errata.c seems to be right way to go. > Besides, there were no confirmed reports of this happening > in field (I mean the bug manifestation, not make -j panicing or hanging > machine :). http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=26081 Maxim Dounin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091105123028.GK1144>