lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux/Pro [was Re: Coding style - a non-issue]
    On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 08:05:59PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
    > Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > Because, just like the prevailing wisdom in the Linux hackers, they thought
    > > it would be relatively straightforward to get SMP to work. They started at
    > > 2, went to 4, etc., etc. Noone ever asked them to go from 1 to 100 in one
    > > shot. It was always incremental.
    >
    > Maybe that is because 128 CPU machines aren't exactly common... just as
    > SPARC, m68k, S/390 development lags behind ia32 just because there are
    > many, many more of the later around.
    >
    > Just as Linus said, the development is shaped by its environment.

    Really? So then people should be designing for 128 CPU machines, right?
    So why is it that 100% of the SMP patches are incremental? Linux is
    following exactly the same path taken by every other OS, 1->2, then 2->4,
    then 4->8, etc. By your logic, someone should be sitting down and saying
    here is how you get to 128. Other than myself, noone is doing that and
    I'm not really a Linux kernel hack, so I don't count.

    So why is it that the development is just doing what has been done before?
    --
    ---
    Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:5.224 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site