Niels Kristian Bech Jensen wrote:
>> > So, if such a patch goes into the kernel, module makefiles now have
>> > to be modified to define "CONFIG_SMP" instead of "__SMP__" which,
>> > since they may not even have a "configuration", becomes just another
>> > PITA to support "change for the sake of change".
>> >
>> The purpose is to get rid of what I consider an ugly hack. Since
>> CONFIG_SMP is a proper config option, it and only it should be used IMHO.
>> What is the purpose of having a config option symbol (CONFIG_SMP) define
>> another symbol (__SMP__) ?
>>
> The first to define a symbol makes the rule. How do you claim that
> "CONFIG_SMP" is any more `proper` than "__SMP__" ?
For one, the build-dependency system of the kernel can handle CONFIG_SMP.
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST