From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  8 10:41:42 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E18737B401
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Thu,  8 May 2003 10:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3DFD43FB1
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Thu,  8 May 2003 10:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h48HfWM7035818;
	Thu, 8 May 2003 10:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200305081741.h48HfWM7035818@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: marks@ripe.net
In-Reply-To: <20030508153844.GA1262@laptop.6bone.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
cc: hschaefer@fto.de
Subject: Re: data corruption with current (maybe sis chipset related?)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:41:42 -0000

On  8 May, Mark Santcroos wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:28:35PM +0200, Heiko Schaefer wrote:
>> the thread i found in -current archives suggested that these flags work
>> around an amd-specific issue. now you say that a p4-based machine also
>> needs them to run stable.
> 
> No, it's the other way around. It's an Intel bug, which also went into AMD
> products.
> 
> It is also in the PIII, but because it is so subtle it was never triggered.

I think you can add PII to the list as well.  I started seeing on my PII
box running -stable when I started doing a lot of openoffice builds.

Until a fix is implemented, I think we should include these options in
GENERIC so as not to afflict our users with these little known and
mysterious bogons.