From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juan Quintela Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] acpismp=force fix Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:42:29 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <863chrshay.fsf@trasno.mitica> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Len Brown's message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:37:11 -0700") To: "Brown, Len" Cc: 'Arjan van de Ven' , Hugh Dickins , "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 >>>>> "brown," == Brown, Len writes: Hi brown,> To disable HT on a uni-processor, wouldn't it be preferable to simply run brown,> the UP kernel rather than the SMP kernel with HT disabled? That leaves SMP brown,> systems, where either the BIOS could disable it (it is a BIOS bug if it brown,> can't), or as a last resort CONFIG_X86_HT (2.5) could be config'd out of the brown,> kernel. I guess I've talked myself into not missing "noht" also. noht is very useful for distributions, we already have to do a lot of kernels, any option that "mandates" to compile a different kernel is just bad (IMHO). Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy