On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> OK, how about something more direct and less obtrusive, like this?
I think this is fine, but I also think it's a bit hacky.
Wouldn't it make more sense to make the whole "nofxsr" thing just clear
the capability, ie just a diff like the appended...
Does that work for you? If so, we should _also_ make sure that "no387"
calls this function too, so that you don't have to do _both_ no387 and
nofxsr, which is clearly silly. Once you do no387, the kernel should do
the nofxsr for you, methinks..
Linus
---
diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/common.c
index 2799baa..7ac3c9e 100644
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ static void __cpuinit get_cpu_vendor(str
static int __init x86_fxsr_setup(char * s)
{
disable_x86_fxsr = 1;
+ clear_bit(X86_FEATURE_FXSR, boot_cpu_data.x86_capability);
return 1;
}
__setup("nofxsr", x86_fxsr_setup);
-
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/
[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]
