Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265270AbTFWLbz (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:31:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262437AbTFWLbt (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:31:49 -0400 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:13818 "EHLO mtvmime01.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261846AbTFWLbM (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:31:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:46:38 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: "Grover, Andrew" cc: Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , , , Subject: RE: [BK PATCH] acpismp=force fix In-Reply-To: <1056355301.1699.6.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1788 Lines: 43 On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 09:43, Grover, Andrew wrote: > > > From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@digeo.com] > > > > ACPI: make it so acpismp=force works (reported by Andrew Morton) > > > > > But prior to 2.5.72, CPU enumeration worked fine without > > > acpismp=force. > > > Now it is required. How come? > > > > (I'm taking the liberty to update the subject, which I accidentally left > > blank) > > > > Because 2.4 has that behavior. One objection that people raised to > > applying the 2.4 ACPI patch was that it changed that behavior. So I made > > an effort to keep it there. > > in 2.4 it is absolutely not mantadory; it's default actually if the cpu > advertises the "ht" flag..... Right, enabling HT hasn't relied on "acpismp=force" since 2.4.18. Requiring "acpismp=force" now in 2.4 or 2.5 is just a step backwards. But when we changed to HT by default, I added bootparam "noht" to disable it if it was found troublesome. Last time I checked, "noht" was ineffectual on 2.5, and perhaps now it's ineffectual on 2.4.22-pre? (If I remember right, in 2.5 it did have one effect, determining whether the "ht" flag is shown in /proc/cpuinfo: but it was intended to be more useful than that.) Certainly reliance on "acpismp=force" should be removed if it's crept back in. But what should we do about "noht"? Wave a fond goodbye, and remove it's associated code and Documentation from 2.4 and 2.5 trees, rely on changing the BIOS setting instead? Or bring it back into action? Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/