From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] acpismp=force fix Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:59:34 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20030627115934.D16156@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: 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 Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:58:17PM +0100 To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Brown, Len" , 'Arjan van de Ven' , "Grover, Andrew" , 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 Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:58:17PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > and in 2.4.22-pre (which thus diverges from 2.4.21). That surprises me, > but I'd definitely defer to Arjan's preference. for 2.4 it's a matter of compatability; also Andrew said it made the code cleaner actually. > > Re: "acpismp=force" > > I wouldn't miss it. Sounds unanimous. > > It did have some point before, recent changes have rendered it pointless, > and even if those changes get revised, there'll be a better way than the > confusing "acpismp=force". it became mostly useless when the automatic detection based on CPU flag went it > > Re: "noht" > > To disable HT on a uni-processor, wouldn't it be preferable to simply run > > the UP kernel rather than the SMP kernel with HT disabled? > > Yes, though wouldn't BIOS be able to disable it on those too? not all bioses have such a setting unfortionatly so it remains a useful option.