Messages in this thread | | | From | "Andrew E. Mileski" <> | Subject | Re: modules problems | Date | Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:07:46 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
> > > The problem still to be fixed is a way to differentiate modules compiled > > > for SMP and those for non-SMP. Working on it! > > > > Another $0.02 idea ... would changing the OS type from "Linux" to > > "Linux-SMP" hurt anything? It sure would be easy to detect a SMP > > kernel this way. > > Why not just make all the exported kernel interfaces the same whether > the kernel is single processor or SMP? You shouldn't need to have > multiple modules for kernels with different configurations. The fact > that modules need to be recompiled based upon the kernel configuration > is a bug.
I suspect that if it was that simple of a matter, somebody would have done this already :-) Remember, SMP machines are really odd beasts because of interrupt handling, cache coherency, locking, etc. I suspect an all encompasing kernel could be built (including modules), but it certainly wouldn't be small or optimized for the architecture.
-- Andrew E. Mileski mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net Linux Plug-and-Play Kernel Project http://www.redhat.com/linux-info/pnp/ XFree86 Matrox Team http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~ajv/xf86-matrox.html PGP Public keys are available from http://www.redhat.com/~aem/pgp-keys.txt
| |