On Friday 16 March 2007 21:25, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > If you have ever wondered why the OpenBSD multi-processor kernel is > > named "GENERIC.MP" rather than "GENERIC.SMP," it's because you've > > missed out on some of Theo's ideas and plans to do asymmetric > > mutli-processing processing rather than the usual symmetric > > multi-processing (SMP). > > Let's just cut it right there. I had no ideas that I have such ideas > and plans. Not only do you think you have insight into my mind, but > you're talking about stuff which I completely leave up to other > people!! >
I'm certainly no mind reader but yes, I'm probably guilty of giving you credit for the various successes of the project which were actually done by other people. It's an easy mistake to make. > If I do anything regarding multi-cpu support, it is by forcing the > developers to be slightly more conservative, and thus making sure > that everyone in the development team doesn't get left in the lurch > when our tree breaks for 1-2 years, like everyone's tree has when > going beyond single cpu. > > But please... don't attribute some brilliance to me which I don't > have. Stop being you for a moment, and try to look at it from an outside perspective. All other projects spent a year or two with a broken, split, merged, convoluted and otherwise messed up tree when they tried to go beyond single cpu, so by comparison the approach you took actually was brilliant. kind regards, jcr
