lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux/Pro [was Re: Coding style - a non-issue]
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 08:05:59PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > Because, just like the prevailing wisdom in the Linux hackers, they thought
> > it would be relatively straightforward to get SMP to work. They started at
> > 2, went to 4, etc., etc. Noone ever asked them to go from 1 to 100 in one
> > shot. It was always incremental.
>
> Maybe that is because 128 CPU machines aren't exactly common... just as
> SPARC, m68k, S/390 development lags behind ia32 just because there are
> many, many more of the later around.
>
> Just as Linus said, the development is shaped by its environment.

Really? So then people should be designing for 128 CPU machines, right?
So why is it that 100% of the SMP patches are incremental? Linux is
following exactly the same path taken by every other OS, 1->2, then 2->4,
then 4->8, etc. By your logic, someone should be sitting down and saying
here is how you get to 128. Other than myself, noone is doing that and
I'm not really a Linux kernel hack, so I don't count.

So why is it that the development is just doing what has been done before?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
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 13:18    [W:0.343 / U:1.852 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site