plz ignore.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
plz ignore.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[OT] Re: mysterious card
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:24:59 +0100, Heusden, Folkert van wrote: >Ok, the question is: does anyone know a place on the web where I can find >specifications of ISA-slots? I need to know what is supposed to be connected >to the pins (1, 2, 6, etc.) Are you talking about the the layout of the ISA-bus ? If so, it is well-documented in many places. I have never looked it up on the web, but try this: http://www.techfest.com/hardware/bus/isa.htm (never used it myself, so I can't vouch for the technical quality/content) regards, Per Jessen regards, Per Jessen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[OT] Re: mysterious card
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:24:59 +0100, Heusden, Folkert van wrote: Ok, the question is: does anyone know a place on the web where I can find specifications of ISA-slots? I need to know what is supposed to be connected to the pins (1, 2, 6, etc.) Are you talking about the the layout of the ISA-bus ? If so, it is well-documented in many places. I have never looked it up on the web, but try this: http://www.techfest.com/hardware/bus/isa.htm (never used it myself, so I can't vouch for the technical quality/content) regards, Per Jessen regards, Per Jessen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: How to Power off with ACPI/APM?
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:33:06 +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote: > >On 2001.01.05 Dominik Kubla wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:18:46AM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote: >> > >> > Silly question, but have you realized that you don't have to enable >> > SMP in kernel to do multithreading ? >> > >> >> That depends on your definition: If you really want to run multiple >> threads simultaneously (as opposed to concurrent i guess) i imagine >> you will either need more than one CPU or one of those new beasties >> which support multiple threads in parallel on their various execution >> units... >> > >Nope. You can run multiple threads "simultaneously" on an uniprocessor, >so simultaneous as the rest of the processes the cpu is running. >Of course the efficiency of multi-threading drops on an uni-processor >if your threads only do hard math work and no IO, but a thread can >be crunchin numbers at the same time one other is waiting for IO even >on a one cpu box. Think on an app that does read-process-write in loop. >Two parallel threads on an uniprocessor can overlap IO and process >and be more efficient than a non-threaded version. Uh, I guess it is partially a matter of interpretation, but IMHO you cannot have concurrent processing on a uni-processor (one instruction stream). One thread at a time will be executing (ie. active on the processor), and only one. You can however easily do multi-processing/multi-threading on a uni- processor. regards, Per Jessen, Principal Engineer, ENIDAN Technologies http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: How to Power off with ACPI/APM?
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:33:06 +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote: On 2001.01.05 Dominik Kubla wrote: On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:18:46AM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote: Silly question, but have you realized that you don't have to enable SMP in kernel to do multithreading ? That depends on your definition: If you really want to run multiple threads simultaneously (as opposed to concurrent i guess) i imagine you will either need more than one CPU or one of those new beasties which support multiple threads in parallel on their various execution units... Nope. You can run multiple threads "simultaneously" on an uniprocessor, so simultaneous as the rest of the processes the cpu is running. Of course the efficiency of multi-threading drops on an uni-processor if your threads only do hard math work and no IO, but a thread can be crunchin numbers at the same time one other is waiting for IO even on a one cpu box. Think on an app that does read-process-write in loop. Two parallel threads on an uniprocessor can overlap IO and process and be more efficient than a non-threaded version. Uh, I guess it is partially a matter of interpretation, but IMHO you cannot have concurrent processing on a uni-processor (one instruction stream). One thread at a time will be executing (ie. active on the processor), and only one. You can however easily do multi-processing/multi-threading on a uni- processor. regards, Per Jessen, Principal Engineer, ENIDAN Technologies http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system
Heiko and Matthew - I'm pretty certain this is not something beowulfish, unless perhaps you are thinking in terms of mosix and some of the other batch/queueing systems. Beowulf after all is a set of distributed processors, not SMP (although an individual node maybe SMP). regards, Per Jessen, London On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:11:11 -0500, Matthew D. Pitts wrote: >Heiko, >If I'm not mistaken, this sort of thing has been done by the beowulf folks. > >Matthew D. Pitts >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:03 AM >Subject: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system [snip] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system
Heiko and Matthew - I'm pretty certain this is not something beowulfish, unless perhaps you are thinking in terms of mosix and some of the other batch/queueing systems. Beowulf after all is a set of distributed processors, not SMP (although an individual node maybe SMP). regards, Per Jessen, London On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:11:11 -0500, Matthew D. Pitts wrote: Heiko, If I'm not mistaken, this sort of thing has been done by the beowulf folks. Matthew D. Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:03 AM Subject: CPU attachent and detachment in a running Linux system [snip] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microcode ....
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:10:08 +0100, Fabrice Peix wrote: > > > Yop, > Just a newbie question : > What do exactly Intel P6 Microcode. > It executes Intel P6 instructions. That's what microcode does. regards, Per Jessen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microcode ....
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:10:08 +0100, Fabrice Peix wrote: Yop, Just a newbie question : What do exactly Intel P6 Microcode. It executes Intel P6 instructions. That's what microcode does. regards, Per Jessen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
test - plz ignore
I haven't seen any traffic since Oct13 - is the list down ? regards, Per Jessen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
test - plz ignore
I haven't seen any traffic since Oct13 - is the list down ? regards, Per Jessen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 21:18:08 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: >jesse wrote: >> IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released >> product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't >> file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I >> think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think >> it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse >> to let them use it. > >Ah, but there is plenty patentable in the current phase tree design, >implemented in Tux2 since early last year. Have you ever seen a >three-root atomic commit before? So if you're right then there is still >time. On the other hand, I've heard that as soon as I disclose it >publicly it's not patentable. This my belief too - we looked into patenting a while back, and in general you cannot patent something that is already public knowledge. Ie. if you have already published information, one way or another, no patenting. This certainly applies to hardware (of any kind) - whether the same rule is applied to software - no idea - but it seems probable. Also, our information originates at the EPO - the US regulations/laws might be different. regards, Per Jessen, Principal Engineer, ENIDAN Technologies http://www.enitek.com - home of the J1 serial console - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux 2 patents
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 21:18:08 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: jesse wrote: IANAL, but I believe that once you've implemented a method in a released product, you have only one year to file the patents for it. If you don't file patents for it within this time period, it becomes public domain. I think it would be possible to invalidate their patents, but I don't think it would be possible to get your own patent on it after the fact and refuse to let them use it. Ah, but there is plenty patentable in the current phase tree design, implemented in Tux2 since early last year. Have you ever seen a three-root atomic commit before? So if you're right then there is still time. On the other hand, I've heard that as soon as I disclose it publicly it's not patentable. This my belief too - we looked into patenting a while back, and in general you cannot patent something that is already public knowledge. Ie. if you have already published information, one way or another, no patenting. This certainly applies to hardware (of any kind) - whether the same rule is applied to software - no idea - but it seems probable. Also, our information originates at the EPO - the US regulations/laws might be different. regards, Per Jessen, Principal Engineer, ENIDAN Technologies http://www.enitek.com - home of the J1 serial console - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
