linux-kernel - Re: + i386-time-avoid-pit-smp-lockups.patch added to -mm tree

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: <200610191650.25678.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:50:25 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	johnstul@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: + i386-time-avoid-pit-smp-lockups.patch added to -mm tree

On Thursday 19 October 2006 16:48, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>An SMP kernel can boot on UP hardware, in which case I think
> >>num_possible_cpus() will be 1, won't it?
> > 
> > 
> > 0 was a typo, i meant 1 for UP of course. 0 would be nonsensical.
> 
> Sure, I realised that. For a UP kernel, the test will compile away.
> 
> But Daniel seems to say there is dead code that could be compiled
> out for SMP kernels. I just don't think that is possible because the
> SMP kernel can boot a UP system where num_possible_cpus() is 1.

I thought he meant !CONFIG_SMP kernels.

-Andi
-
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/