Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261588AbTIXV5U (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:57:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261628AbTIXV5U (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:57:20 -0400 Received: from fmr09.intel.com ([192.52.57.35]:22486 "EHLO hermes.hd.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261588AbTIXV5O convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:57:14 -0400 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 Subject: RE: HT not working by default since 2.4.22 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:56:57 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: HT not working by default since 2.4.22 Thread-Index: AcOBb0xRBcZcIEOcQpmli0QiRzF8awBcvVPg From: "Brown, Len" To: "Marcelo Tosatti" Cc: , "Alan Cox" , "Nakajima, Jun" , "Jeff Garzik" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2003 21:56:58.0529 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6C36910:01C382E6] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2151 Lines: 60 Okay, so what to do? We could make 2.4.23 like 2.4.21 where ACPI code for HT is included in the kernel even when CONFIG_ACPI is not set. Or we could leave 2.4.23 like 2.4.22 where disabling CONFIG_ACPI really does remove all ACPI code in the kernel; and when CONFIG_ACPI is set, CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY is available to limit ACPI to just the tables part needed for HT. I'd prefer the later (doing nothing) because CONFIG_ACPI really should exclude all of ACPI. If we start including bits of ACPI without CONFIG_ACPI, where do we stop? I'm not sure how to address "compatibility" and "regression" concepts in the face of changing config files. Make oldconfig will ask you about CONFIG_ACPI -- perhaps I should update the help text to emphasize that it is necessary for HT, and that if selected, CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY is then available? Is defconfig used? Does it define "compatibility"? If so, we could define CONFIG_ACPI && CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY in defconfig to get the 2.4.21 behavior -- then could have our cake and eat it too. I don't feel strongly about which way to go, but I will want to keep 2.4 and 2.6 as similar as possible in this area. Thanks, -Len > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@pobox.com] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:55 PM > To: Brown, Len > Cc: Marcelo Tosatti; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Alan Cox; > Nakajima, Jun > Subject: Re: HT not working by default since 2.4.22 > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:28:03PM -0400, Brown, Len wrote: > > If somebody has a 2.4.22 system where CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY plus zero > > cmdline parameters doesn't result in HT running and no ACPI running, > > then please forward the details directly to me. > > The old acpitable.[ch] was unconditionally enabled... So _not_ > unconditionally enabling HT was a regression. > > (just pointing out a fact; I actually prefer a CONFIG_xxx) > > Jeff > > > > - 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/