Re: SMP should be CONFIG_SMP and exclusive of APM?

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:49:23 +0100 (BST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: James Nunn-Price: "Re: [2.1.32] Can't read /proc (!!!)"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Patch for route.c"

> Since SMP has a bad conflict with APM (in arch/i386/kernel/process.c, I
> think), the config process should not ask for APM if SMP = 1 in the
> makefile, at least until APM (or the busy calls, etc.) are supported under
> SMP.

One problem is the APM bios isnt defined to be SMP safe in any docs I have
I'd love to call APM if someone has APM docs confirming APM is SMP safe or
has SMP extensions in docs I don't posess

Any intel folks listening >

Next message: James Nunn-Price: "Re: [2.1.32] Can't read /proc (!!!)"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Patch for route.c"