From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 20 19: 9:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.hutchtel.net (ns1.hutchtel.net [206.9.112.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221B137C244 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:09:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jpaetzel@hutchtel.net) Received: from hacker (hutch-187.hutchtel.net [206.10.67.87]) by ns1.hutchtel.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA11155; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:09:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <007401bff2b8$8e6cea30$57430ace@hacker> From: "Josh Paetzel" To: "Siegbert Baude" , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" References: <397722AD.427D36AE@gmx.de> Subject: Re: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:08:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Siegbert Baude" To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:02 AM Subject: Kernel option NO_F00F_HACK > Hi, > is this kernel option a workaround for a known Pentium bug (feature? :-) > )? > If so did Intel remove this bug in newer chips? > Or asked in a different way: Is this option still necessary for all > generations of Pentiums from Pentium 60 to Pentium III 1 GHz? > > Regards, > Siegbert > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > I accidentally switched NO_F00F_HACK and NO_MEMORY_HOLE one day and put in NO_F00F_HOLE by mistake. It's a good thing it didn't compile. Can you imagine what would happen to a FBSD box if there was no hole for the F00F to get out of? Josh To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message