On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Unfortunately it seems that a kernel that supports both i386 and SMP > would have to use very slow methods for locking since instructions > allowing faster locking only came in with the 486 and above.
I'm wondering when this whole discussion will include other ports and their kernel requests... Basically, I can understand everyone's desires for a kernel that covers their cases (SMP, UP, 686, 386, etc), but the bloat issue that initially started this thread would be multiplied if the same type of solutions were implemented for the other archs. Alpha is now simplified, for the most part, and can use a "generic" kernel that doesn't suffer performance-wise, but we still have some exceptions (Ruffian, SMP, etc). If UP and SMP kernels were provided on i386, then we would request the same. I would assume sparc, powerpc, etc may also request the same. This could lead to an even larger archive bloat than this thread is trying to prevent... I've been clueless on how to solve this problem (or even what kind of solution may be needed to begin with since I don't see the current situation as being "a problem"), so I haven't spoken until now, but as this thread gets more and more Intel/AMD-centric, I'm beginning to wonder what the larger implications may be... C
