Zachary Amsden wrote:
Please explain why this is a reject after looking at the cpuid macro.
It changed recently. Note 0 -> %ecx.
Then just use cpuid_eax(4)? Or do those macros not behave that way?
Would you prefer that I call cpuid_count and pass an explicit zero
parameter for ecx?
I gue
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Reject! This is a bogus patch; Intel's CPUID level 4 has a
nonstandard dependency on ECX (idiots...) and therefore this needs
special handling.
-hpa
Here's a better idea. Let's comment that unusual dependency and make it
explicit in the macro.
Some more ass
Please explain why this is a reject after looking at the cpuid macro.
It changed recently. Note 0 -> %ecx.
Would you prefer that I call cpuid_count and pass an explicit zero
parameter for ecx?
/*
* Generic CPUID function
* clear %ecx since some cpus (Cyrix MII) do not set or clear %ecx
* r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some more assembler cleanups I noticed along the way.
Index: linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c
===
--- linux-2.6.13.orig/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c 2005-08-03
15:18:18.0 -0700
+++ l
Some more assembler cleanups I noticed along the way.
Diffs against: 2.6.13-rc4-mm1
Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Index: linux-2.6.13/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c
===
--- linux-2.6.13.orig/arch/i386/kernel/crash.c 20
5 matches
Mail list logo
