Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:01:42 -0800 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: F00F-HACK still necessary? Message-ID: <200010291602.e9TG25B01059@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:13:01 %2B0100." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010291509250.418-100000@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010291509250.418-100000@ipamzlx.physik.uni-ma inz.de> , "O. Hartmann" writes: > Dear sirs. > As I read the changes received from CVSup today I realized the changes > in the explanation of the kernel oprion NO_F00F_HACK. We use an SMP system > with two 866EB Coppermines, so option is i686_CPU in the kernel. My question > is simple: do I still need to let NO_F00F_HACK undefined? For AMD CPUs we cou > ld > define this to remove the hack, do we sould remove it from i686 CPUs also? NO_F00F_HACK is only effective with the original Pentium. If you define i686_CPU, NO_F00F_HACK is implied. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of B 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?200010291602.e9TG25B01059>