Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 08:10, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > It assumes that all x86 SMP machines have APICs. That's untrue of Voyager. > > I think we can probably live with this assumption - others would know > > better than I. > > Early x86s didn't have APICs and they are still often disabled on not so > old mobile CPUs. I don't think it's a good assumption to make for i386. > But how many of those do SMP? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- References:
- [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- From: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando@intellilink.co.jp>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
- [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - fault
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - fault
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] stack overflow safe kdump (2.6.16-rc1-i386) - safe_smp_processor_id
- Index(es):
![]() |