Re: Clarifications about AMD TLB L3 bug

On Dec 18, 1:22 pm, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > As I'm sure you know, I wasn't aware of the follow-up article.
>
> Don't use such lame excuses.
>
When you've grown up, you'll know better than to talk to people that
way, especially to people you don't know.

> > 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=a3a9...
>
There are mistakes, and there are mistakes.  This mistake is one that
AMD could not afford.  Your idea that "errata happen" and that they're
all equivalent is interesting.  I suggest that you buy some AMD
stock.  It's a bargain right now.

Robert.