From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754470AbXLKR3f (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:29:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752812AbXLKR31 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:29:27 -0500 Received: from smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ([213.51.146.201]:45095 "EHLO smtpq2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952AbXLKR31 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:29:27 -0500 Message-ID: <475EC895.2060207@keyaccess.nl> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:27:49 +0100 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David P. Reed" CC: Andi Kleen , "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" , David Newall , Paul Rolland , "H. Peter Anvin" , Krzysztof Halasa , Pavel Machek , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , rol@witbe.net Subject: Re: RFC: outb 0x80 in inb_p, outb_p harmful on some modern AMD64 with MCP51 laptops References: <475DE37F.20706@davidnewall.com> <475DE6F4.80702@zytor.com> <475DEB23.1000304@davidnewall.com> <20071211084059.3d03e11d@tux.DEF.witbe.net> <475E5D4B.8020101@keyaccess.nl> <475E7DC2.4060509@davidnewall.com> <475E8D91.20201@keyaccess.nl> <475E95A3.3070801@davidnewall.com> <20071211163017.GD16750@one.firstfloor.org> <475EBFBA.6090301@keyaccess.nl> <475EC246.10205@reed.com> <475EC320.5080008@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: <475EC320.5080008@keyaccess.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11-12-07 18:04, Rene Herman wrote: > On 11-12-07 18:00, David P. Reed wrote: > >> Which port do you want me to test? > > Oh, thought your previous reply was already responding to this. The > "other diagnostic port", 0xed. The point is not so much that it's going > to be a good alternate solution but to exclude it being a possible > solution. > >> Also, I can run the timing test on my machine if you share the source >> code so I can build it. > > Thanks, would be interesting. This one: Okay, this needs to be junked. I don't get it, but I get different results from an -O2 and an -O0 compile on this one. Anyone? Rene.