On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Frank Butter wrote:
>On 30-Jun-99 Mark Harburn wrote:
>
>> I run it on 2.2.10 quite happly, what paticular kernel are you wanting it
>> for?
>
>I currently run several different from 2.2.5 to 2.2.10. I didn't simply try it,
>since most are production machines and it is not "officialy" supported on that
>kernels. if you say it runs stable I'll try it at least on one machine.
>
>anyway, my question is: why it is possible only using patches
>but cannot be just included in the standard code?
>obviously the opinions about a "clean" implementation differ...
I've run the SMP patch on kernels up until 2.2.6. With my 2.2.10 kernel top
shows my CPU 1 as CPU 17. I don't know what else its fudging so I don't really
trust its output. So I guess it is "stable", but it does have problems with
its accuracy
-M@
--
Matthew Hixson - CIO "Noone has ever tried anything like this before."
FroZenWave Communications "That's why its going to work."
http://www.frozenwave.com -- Trinity and Neo
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
