![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:46:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > 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? for 2.4 it's no problem to honor it really code wise; and it's useful for machines where you can't disable HT in the bios but where your particular workload doesn't positively benefit from HT. - 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 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||