Re: [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP

Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I noted that X86_VOYAGER=y and SMP=n doesn't compile.
> 
> It might be possible to fix this, but as far as I understand it, all 
> Voyager machines are SMP, implying that such a configuration doesn't 
> make much sense.

I was kinda waiting for James to express an opinion.  In theory it'd be
better to make uniproc-on-Voyager build, boot and run like the wind.

In practice, this patch looks practical ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
    • From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2 (repost)] mm: serialize OOM kill operations
• Next by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
• Previous by thread: [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
• Next by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] let X86_VOYAGER depend on SMP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]