Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2000 - 17:31:47 EST

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: recursive exports && linux nfs"
Next in thread: Heiko.Carstens@de.ibm.com: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Maybe reply: Heiko.Carstens@de.ibm.com: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Maybe reply: Heiko.Carstens@de.ibm.com: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi!

> I still wonder what you and other people think about the idea of an
> interface where the parts of the kernel with per-cpu dependencies should
> register two functions...

Why not compile kernel with structeres big enough for 32 processors,
and then just add CPUs up to the limit without changing anything?
Pavel

-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: recursive exports && linux nfs"
Next in thread: Heiko.Carstens@de.ibm.com: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Maybe reply: Heiko.Carstens@de.ibm.com: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Maybe reply: Heiko.Carstens@de.ibm.com: "Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST