linux-kernel - Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608280754100.13393@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:56:12 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Dong Feng <middle.fengdong@...il.com>, ak@...e.de,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

>
>The i386 is older than some of the kernel hackers, and given that a
>modern kernel is pretty painful with less than say 16MB or RAM in
>practice

I have to concur. (Sure, you can't get a reasonable system to work on 16MB, 
but the kernel is fine with 5 megs of RAM. In fact, ancient i386 boxes 
usually do not have "big" things like SCSI, USB or Audio.)

>, I don't see that it would be all that terrible to drop
>support for ancient CPUs at some point (yes, I know some newer
>embedded (and similar) CPUs might be affected here too, but surely not
>that many that people really use --- and they could just use 2.4.x).



Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/