lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Portable binary modules
On 10 Dec 1999, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> You binary-module-compatibility people keep pointing at other operating
> systems as how all this can and should be achieved. OK, question: How
> does NT solve the problem of keeping compatibility in the face of
> different optimizations for different CPUs? Answer: single UP kernel
> and single SMP kernel for *all* x86 CPUs. (Wait, do they even
> *support* 386? Not sure.) And no inlining of fastpath code like
> spinlocks. Is this what we want?

I am not trying to get in the middle of this, but I want to mention that
they NOP out the spinlock codepaths in ntoskrnl.exe and hal.dll when you
install/update a new kernel on a UP machine.

-mike


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.338 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site