Re: Clarifications about AMD TLB L3 bug

Robert Myers wrote:
> As I'm sure you know, I wasn't aware of the follow-up article.

Don't use such lame excuses.

> Somewhere, there might be a customer who matters who would apply such
> an "invasive" patch without sup****t.  Who or where that customer might
> be is beyond my imagining, except that someone im****tant must have a
> bunch of these AMD chips installed somewhere and has no choice but to
> take the chance.  So,
> 
> 1. We rushed a chip into production and missed an infrequently-
> occurring but potentially disastrous bug.
> 
> 2. We are now ru****ng out a patch that pur****ts to fix the bug without
> a serious penalty.  We told you to trust us about the chip, and it
> turns out you shouldn't have.  Now we're telling you *not* to trust us
> about the patch.  Why, exactly, would anyone install the unsup****ted
> patch?  Presumably there is a handful of im****tant customers whose
> hands are being held.  For everyone else, it's just PR.

Nonsense. Go, check how many errata there was in the Core Duo. Just see
the 
example from the same site, from the comments from the article you
quoted...

http://techre****t.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43352&view=next&sid=a3a9ffe993e91c1453d97652f7222e65


rgds
\SK