Re: [Xen-devel] Intel: Overly restrictive test for availablility

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 14:11 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:

> > Is there a more precise way of detecting the presence of this
> > capability? I've seen:
> >         family > 0x6 || (model > 0x17 || (model = 0x17 && stepping >= 4))
> > suggested but this looks like it matches exactly the same set of
> > processors as the "eax < 0x00010674" in the code before aab9fbd6ffa0
> > which was apparently too lenient?

Or alternatively, is there any reason we can't just use wrmsr_safe
instead to gracefully handle processors which can't cope?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[Xen-devel] Intel: Overly restrictive test for availablility of CPUID masking MSRs?, Ian Campbell Re: [Xen-devel] Intel: Overly restrictive test for availablility of CPUID masking MSRs?, Ian Campbell Re: [Xen-devel] Intel: Overly restrictive test for availablility of CPUID masking MSRs?, Ian Campbell <=

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] pv/pcifront-2.6.32, Ian Campbell

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ breaks single VCPU domain 0 between xen/master and xen/next, Erik Brakkee

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] Intel: Overly restrictive test for availablility of CPUID masking MSRs?, Ian Campbell

Next by Thread:

[Xen-devel] Installation error: partition does not exist, Teng Lu

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]