Re: 2.6.17-rc3 -- SMP alternatives: switching to UP code

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:

Rene Herman wrote:

Should I be seeing this "SMP alternatives" thing on a !CONFIG_SMP
kernel? It does say 0k, but something is apparently being done at
runtime still. Why?

The UP kernel has empty alternatives tables (as you've noticed), thus
the code doesn't do anything.  Nevertheless it probably makes sense to
add a few #ifdef CONFIG_SMP lines to avoid confusing people and safe a
few bytes ...

Okay, thanks. Yes, I agree such would make sense.

Rene.


-
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:
  • [patch] SMP alternatives: skip with UP kernels.
    • From: Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 2.6.17-rc3 -- SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
    • From: Rene Herman <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.17-rc3 -- SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
    • From: Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
• Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.17-rc3 -- SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
• Next by thread: [patch] SMP alternatives: skip with UP kernels.
• 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]