On Sun, 2015-04-12 at 22:04 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Ben Hutchings, le Sun 12 Apr 2015 20:27:29 +0100, a écrit : > > On Sun, 2015-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Ben Hutchings, le Sun 12 Apr 2015 00:35:33 +0100, a écrit : > > > > On Sat, 2015-04-11 at 20:22 +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > > > > > supports-smp-sometimes - that generation of cpu will most likely > > > > > fully support smp, right? > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > That's not the question here, see the bit of documentation that it > > > enables: it's whether the *kernel* supports SMP by default, through > > > SMP-alternatives, in a separate image, or not in any shipped image. > > > > There is only one kernel flavour, which of course supports SMP. I don't > > think SMP-alternatives exist on anything but x86 and ARM, unfortunately. > > Ok, thanks. > > > By the way, is this correctly documented for armhf? Both of the armhf > > kernel flavours support SMP with SMP-alternatives. > > Apparently nobody updated build/arch-options/armhf in that regard. Note > that smp_config_section and smp_config_option should also be set (they > are the section and option that should be used to enable SMP when > configuring Linux).
I've fixed these values (I hope) for armhf, arm64, mips and mipsel based on the current kernel configurations. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
