On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:53:50AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:34:53PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > This reverts commit ed68d7e9b9cfb64f3045ffbcb108df03c09a0f98.
> > The patch wasn't quite correct -- there are non-Intel (and hence
> > non-486) CPUs that we support that don't have CPUID. Since we no
> > longer require CPUID for sync_core(), just revert the patch.
> Might be useful to enumerate which special parts these are.
Right, and since we test for CPUID support at early boot, I think we
should use the X86_FEATURE_CPUID aspect from what I proposed earlier:
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.