Re: Cyrix patch : Proposal?

Andre Derrick Balsa (
Sat, 08 Nov 1997 19:39:47 +0100

Hi Willem,

Willem Riede wrote:
> Even if some (or most) options can be set from user space, I want the kernel to take care of recognizing the chip and setting all safe options to take advantage of them.

Honestly, you don't need a 50Kb patch to do this. A very small patch
will do.
> I think it would be a feather in Linux's cap if it automatically recognized
> what CPU it runs on and sets any parameters that make that CPU function most
> effectively (and some may have to be set at config for recompile time).

Then the 2.1.39 Cyrix patch won't do what you want: it does not
configure the ARRs, which can bring up to a 50% improvement in CPU/video
memory bandwidth.

All it does is allow one to change various options that bring
insignificant performance improvements (< 0.5%) and may in different
circumstances crash your machine.

> I think this is more important than keeping "the Linux kernel source as clean and trim as possible" as you put it in another posting, and not likely to result in significant "bloat".
> I don't expect to convince you, but I don't think one opinion should be allowed to dominate.

The original question was whether or not to include the Cyrix 2.1.39
patch in the 2.1.x kernel source code as it stands now. OTOH Linus
himself has asked people to stop adding new features to the kernel and
start thinking about finding and eliminating bugs.

I am not trying to make my position dominate: I am just trying to bring
rational, provable arguments and facts to answer the original question.
There is nothing personal in this: I don't even use the 2.1.x series
kernel on my Cyrix boxes, so I don't stand to gain anything either way.

However, since there are only two possible outcomes (to include or not
to include the 2.1.39 Cyrix patch), inevitably one position will


Andrew D. Balsa
Home Page: