Re: lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Sat Sep 01 2001 - 09:10:00 EST

Next message: Simen Thoresen: "Status of the VIA KT133a and 2.4.x debacle?"
Previous message: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "Re: [RFC] lazy allocation of struct block_device"
In reply to: Samium Gromoff: "Re: lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress"
Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> ANdreas Dilger wrote:
> > Win2K even abstracts all SMP/UP code into a module (the HAL) and loads this
> > at boot, thus using the same kernel for both.

> the only possibility of this shows how ugly is SMP in win2k...

Not necessarily. More likely the difference between SMP and
UP is marketing-only and both have the overhead of SMP
locking, etc..

cheers,

Rik

-- IA64: a worthy successor to i860.

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)

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

Next message: Simen Thoresen: "Status of the VIA KT133a and 2.4.x debacle?"
Previous message: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "Re: [RFC] lazy allocation of struct block_device"
In reply to: Samium Gromoff: "Re: lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress"
Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 21:00:11 EST