Re: SMP=1 (was 2.1.103: Still "Ugh at c0111691")

Pierre Phaneuf (
Mon, 25 May 1998 12:38:49 -0400

Mark Cooke wrote:

> Careful with the quoting, Pierre. The only two lines I wrote were the
> two directly above.

Sorry, I was just meaning to rant away at the general subject, I should
have removed you from the To:...

> On Mon, 25 May 1998, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
> PP> It shouldn't be embarassing or something. SMP kernels are *supposed* to
> PP> work on single processor systems.
> Aye. I don't have a problem running SMP kernels on UP boxes. It would
> just (IMHO) be nice to have the configuration process point it out, so
> you can save the emulation layer, extra locking, and so on, that SMP
> needs over UP, should you forget to double check the Makefile setting.
> Let me clarify my position - I don't really care if SMP=1 is defined
> or not for any kernel version - development or stable. It's easy
> enough to change if you know it's not the one you want. Popping a
> notification into the config process seemed a reasonably trivial
> thing to do.

Hmm... Maybe you could try Michael Chastain's Makefile patch? It
includes a CONFIG_SMP option, so it becomes a normal configuration

Pierre Phaneuf

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to