From: jw schultz (
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 20:36:16 EST

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 11:28:36AM -0700, Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 11:21, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:
> > Perhaps it's just because I'm coming in late, but I cannot understand why
> > NR_CPUS cannot be as low as 4 by default, for all archs, and then in the
> > kernel boot messages, should more be found than is configured for a message is
> > emitted to say "reconfigure your kernel", and continue with the number it was
> > configured for. I personally only rarely see 2-way boxes, 4-way is pretty
> > rare, and anything more must surely count as very specialized.
> Ugh let's stop this thread now. Two points:
> (a) imo, the kernel should support out-of-the-box the maximum
> number of CPUs it can handle. Be lucky we now have a
> configure option to change that. But that does not matter..
> (b) Right now it is 32. Now you can change it... if you want
> to change the current behavior by _default_ why don't we
> suggest that _after_ this is accepted into 2.5? I.e., one
> battle at a time.

By that logic CONFIG_SMP should be "y" by default.

Now i find the name NR_CPUS a bit misleading it seems that
this should be MAX_CPUS but "legacy is as legacy does".

Using the names i prefer i would suggest in *config we
replace CONFIG_SMP with CONFIG_MAX_CPUS and give it a
default of 1. Then make CONFIG_SMP dependant on
CONFIG_MAX_CPUS > 1. That way we avoid adding yet another
option. KISS for the users.

	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:

Remember Cernan and Schmitt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:24 EST