From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Bilski?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] Longhaul - There are limits Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:00:07 +0200 Message-ID: <44A93F07.3020905@interia.pl> References: <44A8A894.7020907@interia.pl> <20060703141148.GK14292@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060703141148.GK14292@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Dave Jones Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk > [...] >=20 > It's not unfeasible for an SMP kernel to be run on UP hardware, > (and several distros are shipping SMP kernels as default) > so I'm in two minds about removing the !SMP check, and making it be a >=20 > if (num_online_cpus() > 1) > return -ENODEV; >=20 > in the init routine. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Dave >=20 It is good idea, but I think there should be check for APIC too,=20 but I don't know how to make it. !X86_UP_APIC is for non SMP=20 kernels only. It is possible that in this case there will be=20 SMP kernel running on single processor with APIC enabled.=20 I don't know much about APIC, but as far I know we are poking=20 PIC registers direcly and in such case not all interrupts will be disabled. Rafa=B3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Znajd=BC kr=F3tsz=B1 drog=EA do pracy! http://map24.interia.pl - interaktywny planer podr=F3=BFy.