On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks for the constructive feedback. I withdraw the patch then
> and will continue to maintain it in private.
But do be sure to send in the bugfixes
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a mes
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:43:42AM -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > Forgive me for not wading through the code, but it really needs to
> > > be spelt out in the comments: what's wrong with the existing kernel,
> > > with "noapic nolapic" in the distro'
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Forgive me for not wading through the code, but it really needs to
> > be spelt out in the comments: what's wrong with the existing kernel,
> > with "noapic nolapic" in the distro's bootstring by default?
>
> It's harder to explain and traditionally in L
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 04:49:53PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>...
> Also I must add in addition to the CONFIG there are valuable bugfixes
> in there too.
If a patch contains both bugfixes and a new feature it's the common way
to send them as different patches.
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
--
"Is
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 03:46:05PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > Forgive me for not wading through the code, but it really needs to
> > > be spelt out in the comments: what's wrong with the existing kernel,
> > > with "noapic nolapic" in the distro's b
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Forgive me for not wading through the code, but it really needs to
> > be spelt out in the comments: what's wrong with the existing kernel,
> > with "noapic nolapic" in the distro's bootstring by default?
>
> It's harder to explain and traditionally in L
> Forgive me for not wading through the code, but it really needs to
> be spelt out in the comments: what's wrong with the existing kernel,
> with "noapic nolapic" in the distro's bootstring by default?
It's harder to explain and traditionally in LILO you couldn't remove
any options (in grub you c
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I'm confused! Why do we need X86_APIC_OFF config option (but code
> > compiled in), with boot options "apic" or "lapic" to enable it,
> > when we already have the code compiled in, with boot options
> > "noapic" or "nolapic" to disable it?
>
> As you sai
> I'm confused! Why do we need X86_APIC_OFF config option (but code
> compiled in), with boot options "apic" or "lapic" to enable it,
> when we already have the code compiled in, with boot options
> "noapic" or "nolapic" to disable it?
As you said. The distribution wants a kernel that has it disa
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> This patch adds a new CONFIG_X86_APIC_OFF option. This is useful
> for distribution UP kernels who should run with local APIC off by
> default (because older machines often have broken mptables etc.).
>
> But there are a few machines who don't boot with
10 matches
Mail list logo
