On 10/04/2010 03:17 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2010 02:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, cpu_has() depends on:
>>>> #if defined(CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
>>>
>>> Ahh. Right you are. The place that depends on just P6_NOP is the
>>> default NOP choice logic in <asm/nops.h>
>>>
>>> But the end result ends up being the same: can we please clean this
>>> all up so that it isn't so confusing? Rather than add to the
>>> confusion?
>>>
>>
>> Agreed that this should be cleaned up.  However, in the meantime I'd
>> like to keep Borislav's patch in the tree since it makes the code
>> technically correct at least.
> 
> Another piece of the confusion I noticed a couple of days ago:
> X86_MINIMUM_CPU_FAMILY defaults to "6" if X86_32 &&
> X86_P6_NOP; whereas X86_P6_NOP depends on X86_64.
> 

Again, it's completely consistent -- if you keep in mind that
CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP depending on X86_64 is a policy decision; that policy
can theoretically be changed.  However, it really doesn't seem worth it
to ever contemplate at this point.

	-hpa
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/