On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 10:53 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 11:30 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:00:14AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 22:51 +0800, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote: > > > > product: Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.40GHz > > > > capabilities: fpu fpu_exception wp vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe up bts > > > The kernel will always either boot or not boot (with a message from the > > > very early loader about lack of PAE). On the system above it looks like > > > it wouldn't boot due to lack of PAE. > > > > It is quite possible that this CPU actually supports PAE. They don't > > show it until you try to enable it. > > Ah, I wasn't sure if the kernel would check for the CPUID bit and just > fail or do something more clever to see if it worked. > > In any case my main point is that it will either work or not. There is > no half working/data corrupting case. There might be if the CPUs that don't advertise PAE also weren't tested for PAE functionality at manufacturing time. But if we make the 686-pae kernel refuse to boot without PAE advertised, we'll also break currently working systems. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption] would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. - Bill Gates
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part