On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 21:28, Alexey Suslikov wrote: >> >> >> >> While I see practical use, someone don't. I call this disagreement. There >> >> is >> >> no problem for me if somebody disagree with a plan I have. It's normal. >> >> >> >> Btw, Intel's doc I have found at >> >> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/application-notes/processor-identification-cpuid-instruction-note.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> says "31 Not Used Always returns 0". >> > >> > In that case, there's no sense testing for it, because it's always 0. >> > >> > If it isn't 0, then it's not an amd64 computer and we don't support >> > it. Trying to identify all the infinite machines we don't support is >> > fruitless, imo, and perhaps not a path we should start down, because >> > then people will expect us to detect why we don't run on *their* not >> > supported computer. >> >> In practice, it is not zero. This is why my point was opposite: >> >> * if I see Hypervisor flag in dmesg, my (virtual) hardware is not guaranteed >> to operate properly (which is not theoretically, but practically true, >> because >> of crash we have). > > Well, gee, it sure sounds like KVM is violating Intel's specification. > > We should not fix this.
$ grep -R "bugs@" /usr/src/sys/* /usr/src/sys/dev/usb/ubsa.c: "Please send your dmesg to <bugs@openbsd.org>, thanks.\n", /usr/src/sys/dev/usb/umsm.c: "Please send your dmesg to <bugs@openbsd.org>, thanks.\n", Sometimes we warn users, sometimes not (but we aware of the problem). What is the criteria?
