From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752674AbZELTt4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 15:49:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751177AbZELTtq (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 15:49:46 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f222.google.com ([209.85.218.222]:54146 "EHLO mail-bw0-f222.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750974AbZELTtp convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 15:49:45 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KFFQK4E1AVEdmuc54twLybOG2uq1ARCkXLMo6OfcodKYDQ1hualJ33DDovVMO8hMWv V0p3TmwQr3wM5B135AoFbwMe5P+CbKoE5xIpVRm/2947GsZbrGSsIMoON+LVqQxbCPRH SOfLC44jv8g9+LcxswEkjZeEedCP3VZD4NxP8= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A09C444.9070809@zytor.com> References: <1242112482.3283.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090512133950.GA15474@aftab> <1242136177.14832.0.camel@ht.satnam> <20090512141027.GA19143@aftab> <4A09A688.6080603@zytor.com> <20090512181358.GC19143@aftab> <4A09C444.9070809@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:49:45 +0200 Message-ID: <9ea470500905121249i5fddf318lde5377d3d438854a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu/proc.c adding extended_cpuid_level for /proc/cpuinfo From: Borislav Petkov To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Borislav Petkov , Jaswinder Singh Rajput , Ingo Molnar , x86 maintainers , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:47 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Borislav Petkov wrote: >> >>>  It hardly "completes" /proc/cpuinfo; especially if you consider that >>> there are at least three additional ranges in wide use (two used by a >>> single vendor only, and the third by virtualization software.) >> >> I think both vendors use the two ranges :-o). >> > > No, I'm taking about the 0x8086xxxx and 0xC000xxxx used by two other > vendors (neither of which you and I work for, and at least one of which > is defunct.) Ah, yes. Gotcha. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris