From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] acpismp=force fix Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:54:08 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20030623115408.E23874@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1056355301.1699.6.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from hugh-DTz5qymZ9yRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org on Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:46:38PM +0100 To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Grover, Andrew" , Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , torvalds-Lhe3bsMrZseB+jHODAdFcQ@public.gmane.org, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:46:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > Certainly reliance on "acpismp=force" should be removed if it's crept > back in. But what should we do about "noht"? Wave a fond goodbye, > and remove it's associated code and Documentation from 2.4 and 2.5 > trees, rely on changing the BIOS setting instead? Or bring it back > into action? for 2.4 it's no problem to honor it really code wise; and it's useful for machines where you can't disable HT in the bios but where your particular workload doesn't positively benefit from HT.