From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (970903.SGI.8.8.7/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id PAA808961 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:31:16 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA05650 for linux-list; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:29:19 -0800 Received: from hollywood.engr.sgi.com (hollywood.engr.sgi.com [150.166.61.38]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA05624 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:29:17 -0800 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by hollywood.engr.sgi.com (940816.SGI.8.6.9/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA04987; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:29:17 -0800 Received: from sgi.sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA05492; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:29:00 -0800 Received: from dm.cobaltmicro.com ([209.19.61.51]) by sgi.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/970507) via ESMTP id PAA24035; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:28:59 -0800 env-from (davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com) Received: (from davem@localhost) by dm.cobaltmicro.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27334; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:23:46 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:23:46 -0800 Message-Id: <199711172323.PAA27334@dm.cobaltmicro.com> From: "David S. Miller" To: fisher@sgi.com CC: linux@hollywood.engr.sgi.com, fisher@hollywood.engr.sgi.com In-reply-to: <199711172128.NAA04775@hollywood.engr.sgi.com> (fisher@hollywood.engr.sgi.com) Subject: Re: Pentium F00F bug Linux workaround; BSDI Response References: <199711172128.NAA04775@hollywood.engr.sgi.com> Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk I'm going to choose more lightly what I decide to post here if it's going to make it's way to every tom, dick, and harry out there in the unix industry... Fact is that Intel was trying to make sure _no_ vendor had a fix out before anyone else. If it was not explicitly stated in the NDA they signed with Intel, this was a mistake and not what was intended. Now that you've talked to Borman about this fish, ask him why he had to take the patch set down within a day or so. If he says "because it was a BETA patch set", I'd find his response hard to believe. Intel engineers internally were working themselves on fixes for various systems that they did have source to (Linux, maybe {net,free}BSD and a few others) and planned to release those patch sets and allow vendors to release their own patches at the same exact time. BSDI putting out their patch ahead of that point in time was, if anything, totally against how Intel wanted things happen. Later, David S. Miller davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com