![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 09:43, Grover, Andrew wrote: > > > From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@digeo.com] > > > > ACPI: make it so acpismp=force works (reported by Andrew Morton) > > > > > But prior to 2.5.72, CPU enumeration worked fine without > > > acpismp=force. > > > Now it is required. How come? > > > > (I'm taking the liberty to update the subject, which I accidentally left > > blank) > > > > Because 2.4 has that behavior. One objection that people raised to > > applying the 2.4 ACPI patch was that it changed that behavior. So I made > > an effort to keep it there. > > in 2.4 it is absolutely not mantadory; it's default actually if the cpu > advertises the "ht" flag..... Right, enabling HT hasn't relied on "acpismp=force" since 2.4.18. Requiring "acpismp=force" now in 2.4 or 2.5 is just a step backwards. But when we changed to HT by default, I added bootparam "noht" to disable it if it was found troublesome. Last time I checked, "noht" was ineffectual on 2.5, and perhaps now it's ineffectual on 2.4.22-pre? (If I remember right, in 2.5 it did have one effect, determining whether the "ht" flag is shown in /proc/cpuinfo: but it was intended to be more useful than that.) Certainly reliance on "acpismp=force" should be removed if it's crept back in. But what should we do about "noht"? Wave a fond goodbye, and remove it's associated code and Documentation from 2.4 and 2.5 trees, rely on changing the BIOS setting instead? Or bring it back into action? Hugh - 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 12:36 [W:0.164 / U:0.490 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||