Re: SMP=1 (was 2.1.103: Still "Ugh at c0111691")

Mark Cooke (mpc@star.sr.bham.ac.uk)
Mon, 25 May 1998 17:19:19 +0100 (BST)


> Mark Cooke wrote:
>
> > > > Its quite embarassing to say that I've built SMP-kernels on my single
> > > > processor system - I just didn't notice that SMP was enabled.
> > <snip>
> > > This should be changed so that SMP is not default anymore once
> > > all the different source trees get synced again. (i.e., hopefully before
> > > 2.2. :)
> >
> > Or that menuconfig/xconfig/config and modified to have a reasonably
> > prominent display of the current setting of the SMP variable.

Careful with the quoting, Pierre. The only two lines I wrote were the
two directly above.

On Mon, 25 May 1998, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

PP> It shouldn't be embarassing or something. SMP kernels are *supposed* to
PP> work on single processor systems.

Aye. I don't have a problem running SMP kernels on UP boxes. It would
just (IMHO) be nice to have the configuration process point it out, so
you can save the emulation layer, extra locking, and so on, that SMP
needs over UP, should you forget to double check the Makefile setting.

Let me clarify my position - I don't really care if SMP=1 is defined
or not for any kernel version - development or stable. It's easy
enough to change if you know it's not the one you want. Popping a
notification into the config process seemed a reasonably trivial
thing to do.

Cheers,

Mark

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark Cooke The views expressed above are mine and are not
Systems Programmer necessarily representative of university policy
University Of Birmingham URL: http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~mpc/
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu