Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s

On Sul, 2005-11-13 at 20:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It's a bad hack anyways. Better would be probably to use a uncached WC write.
> I would rather use that.

I'm not clear that anything but lock operations have the required
guarantee of atomicity relative to bus masters which are not processors.
Especially so on intel.

-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: sparc64: Oops in pci_alloc_consistent with cingergyT2
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]