Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:11:40 -0500 (EST) | From | Michael Nelson <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |