Re: Cyrix Detection -- NO SMP, please ?????

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
18 Oct 1998 11:42:20 -0700

In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.981018023233.20378A-100000@z.ml.org>,
Gregory Maxwell <linker@z.ml.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>
>> SMP=1 commented out ? No multicasting with eepro100 ???? What a hell ? SUCH
>> RECOMENDATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE for 2.2 kernel! Reason ? 2.2 kernel SHOULD
>> work for AT LEAST 99.9% peoples in precompiled binary-only version with all
>> needed capabilities !!!
>
>First off, before you get all hot and bothered: SMP=1 SHOULD BE OFF BY
>DEFAULT!. No one SHOULD be running a SMP kernel on a non SMP box! Yes, it
>should not lockup.. But it's performance should be less. It should be no
>problem for a dist to ship two sets of kernels and modules, and a util to
>pick the right one.

Has anyone written such a util (aside from shipping a SMP kernel on
the install floppy and having it load a UP kernel if it only finds
one processor. This would be a good thing if the processor detection
wasn't apparently dependent on the kernel being UP, but as it is you've
got a wonderful choice between processor detection and MP detection)?

>You shouldn't be using APM with a SMP kernel.

Why not? With wake-on-lan and other spiffy perversions, it seems
perfectly reasonable that a SMP kernel should be able to deal with
APM. Sure, most of the reason for having APM is so that laptops
can be frugal, but am I the only one who uses a SMP machine for
my local router (99.9% idle...) ?

____
david parsons \bi/ Too many machines lying around the office.
\/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/