Re: [2.6 patch] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change

* Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:

> The x86 unification resulted in CONFIG_X86_HT no longer being set if 
> (X86_32 && MK8).
> 
> After grep'ing through the tree I think the problem is that different
> places have different assumptions about the semantics of CONFIG_X86_HT,
> either
> - hyperthreading or
> - multicore
> 
> This should be sorted out properly, but until then we should keep the
> 2.6.23 status quo.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

thanks, applied. This is for 2.6.24, right?

	Ingo
--
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] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [2.6 patch] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change
    • From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change
    • From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
  • [2.6 patch] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] prevent sending wrong signals to a traced process whose tracer gets killed
• Next by Date: RE: 2.6.22.14 oops msg with commvault galaxy ?
• Previous by thread: [2.6 patch] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change
• Next by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] x86: revert X86_HT semantics change
• 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]