Hello! On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 02:00:34PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:52:00PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> writes: > > > I think there is no much sense in printing that hack in unused; > > > instead, you should print info when option is enabled and vulnerable > > > CPU is detected. > > > > We should *definitely* print a warninhg when a vulnerable CPU is > > detected and the option is *not* enabled. How do you justify not > > telling the user that you know the machine will crash as soon as he runs > > 'make buildworld' with a high -j value? > > We do not do this for other cpu bugs workarounds, why this should be > different. Well, probably is't a good idea to do so? Something like NetBSD's sys/arch/x86/x86/errata.c seems to be right way to go. > Besides, there were no confirmed reports of this happening > in field (I mean the bug manifestation, not make -j panicing or hanging > machine :). http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=26081 Maxim DouninReceived on Thu Nov 05 2009 - 11:30:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:57 UTC