Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:29:40 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |