On Saturday 19 August 2006 22:12, Joey Hess wrote:
> Moreover, we can remove some of the not very well working code that
> tries to detect smp:
Done.
pgpxIn4Ji1wuE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Frans Pop wrote:
> Yes, of course. Should have seen that :-P
>
> So we can safely forget about the SMP issue :-)
Moreover, we can remove some of the not very well working code that
tries to detect smp:
rootskel/src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/S04countcpus-linux-x86
(but not S04countcpus-linux
On Friday 18 August 2006 19:53, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > If I understand FS correctly, the 486 flavor of the kernel is still
> > UP, which means that we still have the same problem in the
> > installer...
>
> Well, the installer won't know it's a smp system, but if it installs a
> 68
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 03:59:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And is there a way to override SMP detection on the kernel commandline?
2.6.17 still doesn't give me a reliable clock on my amd64 system when
running smp.
Boot with "nosmp"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:33:59AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > That's a known issue. Unfortunately there seems to be no way the extra
> > processors can be detected while running a UP kernel.
> And fixed with 2.6.17 for i386 and amd
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 18 August 2006 11:33, you wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > That's a known issue. Unfortunately there seems to be no way the
> > > extra processors can be detected while running a UP kernel.
> >
> > And fixed with 2.6.17 for i38
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:33:59AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > That's a known issue. Unfortunately there seems to be no way the extra
> > processors can be detected while running a UP kernel.
>
> And fixed with 2.6.17 for i386 and a
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Any idea if the HTT flag being present would be a reliable indication of
> dual-core?
Not sure, but it sounds like a reasonable assumption.
> Looks easy enough to implement if we get confirmation.
> Care to send in the output of dmidec
On Friday 18 August 2006 11:33, you wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > That's a known issue. Unfortunately there seems to be no way the
> > extra processors can be detected while running a UP kernel.
>
> And fixed with 2.6.17 for i386 and amd64. 2.6.17 don't lon
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> That's a known issue. Unfortunately there seems to be no way the extra
> processors can be detected while running a UP kernel.
And fixed with 2.6.17 for i386 and amd64. 2.6.17 don't longer provide UP
versions of the kernels.
Bastian
-
On Friday 18 August 2006 01:04, dann frazier wrote:
> I just noticed that d-i chose to install a 686 kernel instead of a
> 686-smp kernel. Of course, with a non-SMP kernel installed
> /proc/cpuinfo only shows 1 CPU. But, after I installed the SMP flavor
> it has:
That's a known issue. Unfortunatel
I just noticed that d-i chose to install a 686 kernel instead of a
686-smp kernel. Of course, with a non-SMP kernel installed
/proc/cpuinfo only shows 1 CPU. But, after I installed the SMP flavor
it has:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 4
mo
12 matches
Mail list logo
