Re: [PATCH] x86: set Pentium M as PAE capable

From: Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: set Pentium M as PAE capable
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:30:15 +0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140228073011.GA26449@debian.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140226154949.GA770@redhat.com>

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:18:52PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>  > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>  > > @@ -226,6 +234,15 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  > >  		clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SEP);
>  > >  
>  > >  	/*
>  > > +	 * PAE CPUID bug: Pentium M reports no PAE but has PAE
>  > > +	 */
>  > > +	if (forcepae) {
>  > > +		printk(KERN_WARNING "PAE forced!\n");
>  > > +		set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_PAE);
>  > > +		add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK, LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE);
>  > 
>  > This is certainly the wrong taint flag. We'd need a new one or to
>  > repurpose another one as I suggested in a previous mail.
> 
> I'd suggest repurposing 'S'. Instead of 'unsafe smp', it could mean
> "out of Spec". We currently only use that flag on some ancient athlon xp,
> so there's not going to be any kind of collision.
> 
> Start with the below maybe ?
> 
> 	Dave

Patch looks fine. Is the patch I previously posted, combined with this
patch, sufficient for inclusion in the kernel? Or is there anything else
I need to do?