Re: Avoiding SMP

kwrohrer@enteract.com
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 00:23:38 -0600 (CST)

And lo, Sean M. Kelly saith unto me:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, dan singhal wrote:
> I also have a single processor machine and am no official on the subject,
> but I can tell you the following:
>
> 1) In the Makefile, you'll see:
> ifdef SMP
> CFLAGS += -D__SMP__
> AFLAGS += -D__SMP__
> endif
In the code, AFAIK you also see #ifdef...which is annoying, since it's
set to 1 in the Makefile, but setting it to 0 doesn't turn it off.

Would it really be that hard to make the code respect SMP=0 as what
it's obviously intended to be? If it's just the Makefile, it should be
child's play...

> This means the value of the SMP = ? does not result in any direct changes
> on the kernel. If the SMP variable is defined or non-zero, SMP=1, then
> the kernel is compiled with SMP support. If it is zero or undefined, then
> SMP is not compiled in the kernel.
ifdef doesn't care if the thing is defined to true or false, just that
it's defined...unless this is a really weird flavor of ifdef. Compiling
with SMP=0 is the same as compiling with SMP=1, alas...

> To make it simple, SMP=2 doesn't mean two processors :>
Correct here. :-)

Keith

-- 
"Quartz glyph jocks vend, fix, BMW."  -- 1990 IOCCC judges
The Decline of Western Civilization:  Native Americans revered Raven and 
Coyote.  Our parents watched Moose and Squirrel.  Our children drool on 
Microsoft Barney and Tickle Me Elmo.          http://www.enteract.com/~kwrohrer


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu