Re: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:

> I don't think it's a good idea. Relying on nested faults in oops
> is a bit unsafe because it could lead to recursive faults in the worst case. 

 Good point.

> Better keep the if

 Except the condition is wrong.  Presence of CR4 could be tested elsewhere
though, with the result being the condition here.

  Maciej
-
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: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
    • From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
    • From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: ACPI and PRREMPT bug
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH]: Clean up of __alloc_pages
• Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
• Next by thread: Re: 2.6.14: CR4 not needed to be inspected on the 486 anymore?
• 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]