Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:36:15 -0800 From: Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: F00F-HACK still necessary? Message-ID: <39FC984F.48AA97AD@quack.kfu.com> References: <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com> <200010291843.e9TIhJG15929@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jdp@polstra.com wrote: > > In article <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert - > ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39FC984F.48AA97AD>