You're right.
This was an ill-fated attempt at backwards compatibility.
I removed acpismp=force in an ACPI cleanup a short time ago, and it
should
hit the tree via the ACPI maintainer after Andy returns from vacation.
Cheers,
-Len
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Pettersson [mailto:mikpe@csd.uu.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:40 AM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: 2.6.0-test2 on Dell PE2650, ACPI_HT_ONLY strangeness
>
>
> Before upgrading our PowerEdge 2650 (dual HT Xeons, Tigon3,
> aic7899, workspace on sw raid5 over 4 disks, ext3) to RH9,
> I gave 2.6.0-test2 a spin. Worked fine, except for one thing.
>
> In 2.4, CONFIG_SMP automatically uses acpitable.c to detect
> secondary threads via the MADT (since MPS doesn't handle them).
>
> In 2.6.0-test2, with CONFIG_SMP and CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY, this
> doesn't happen, _unless_ I also pass acpismp=force on the command
> line. Without acpismp=force, it only finds two CPUs.
>
> The logic in arch/i386/kernel/setup.c, which defaults acpi to
> disabled if HT_ONLY is chosen, seems backwards. Surely if I
> configure HT_ONLY it's because I want to use it, no?
>
> /Mikael
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:33 EST