On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:21:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:26:09PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:14:29AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > [] > > > It's also a quite ill idea to think about whether gcc might produce a > > > few bytes more or less code at the if when there's such a long printk() > > > in the middle... > > > > printk() problem was discussed with proper banana userspace replacement > > proposition by me, so i don't care much. > > > > Though, why MCE can't be enabled/disabled by config option? Native > > engineers from proper company should know what processors have this > > feature... If kconfig isn't flexible for this, i'm glad to hear > > opinions. If it's needed anyway, then sorry. > > You should better say sorry for not having checked that it can already > be disabled with a kconfig option...
Talk is not about wana-build-MCE-in, given to the user's sake. But about flexible selection of this code, if it is really supported by CPU, when user have it enabled (see winchip/preventium sub-thread). More work, it is not such quick patch, certainly, but this is needed for famous i386. I wonder, why such patch wasn't introduced long time ago. Modern (cheap) chips have no MCE? ____ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
