> 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
option...
-- Pierre Phaneuf Web: http://newsfeed.sx.nec.com/~ynecpip/ finger: ynecpip@newsfeed.sx.nec.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu