Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265115AbTFWLkX (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:40:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265263AbTFWLkX (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:40:23 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:18163 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265115AbTFWLkV (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:40:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:54:08 +0000 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Grover, Andrew" , Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , torvalds@transmeta.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] acpismp=force fix Message-ID: <20030623115408.E23874@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1056355301.1699.6.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from hugh@veritas.com on Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:46:38PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 796 Lines: 15 On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:46:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > 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? for 2.4 it's no problem to honor it really code wise; and it's useful for machines where you can't disable HT in the bios but where your particular workload doesn't positively benefit from HT. - 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/