linux-kernel - Re: uses of cmpxchg/xadd in spinlock.h and rwsem.h vs. CONFIG

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: <4A09BD0E020000780000081C@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 17:16:46 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...e.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: uses of cmpxchg/xadd in spinlock.h and rwsem.h vs.
	 CONFIG_M386

>>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> 12.05.09 18:04 >>>
>Nick Piggin wrote:
>> 
>> Is it time to get rid of attempts to support SMP kernels that run on 386, then?
>> Considering we don't actually support SMP 386, and if there is any 386 systems
>> then they're going to be running custom kernels anyway.
>> 
>
>Makes sense to me.  We have never supported SMP 386 to the best of my
>knowledge, and a patch to rip that out would be appreciated.

But why shouldn't a distro be allowed to configure a kernel that runs (UP) on
i386 and also MP on modern systems?

Jan

--
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/