Re: Portable binary modules

Peter Samuelson (peter@wire.cadcamlab.org)
10 Dec 1999 22:17:42 -0600


[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>]
> That means going for the lowest common denominator, ie. 386 and SMP.
> Thanks, but no thanks. I don't mind one module being a bit
> suboptimal, but the whole kernel? Especially mm...

You binary-module-compatibility people keep pointing at other operating
systems as how all this can and should be achieved. OK, question: How
does NT solve the problem of keeping compatibility in the face of
different optimizations for different CPUs? Answer: single UP kernel
and single SMP kernel for *all* x86 CPUs. (Wait, do they even
*support* 386? Not sure.) And no inlining of fastpath code like
spinlocks. Is this what we want?

Peter

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/