From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jan 18 14:32:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (unknown [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050C337B401 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0IMkvQ01626; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:46:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200101182246.f0IMkvQ01626@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Brooks Davis Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP & APM (was Re: SMP & signal 11) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:23:06 PST." <20010118142306.B7247@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:46:57 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:41:02PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > > It's not supported, no. Having said that, it's theoretically *meant* to > > work, but I suspect that there are unconsidered issues which mean that > > APM and SMP just aren't going to mix. > > I could swear I saw posts a year or so ago that SMP and APM won't ever > get along due to BIOS code that isn't SMP safe. The issue is a bit more complicated than that, but basically there's a lot of APM stuff that you can't safely do in MP mode, yes. I recall a commit which enabled a limited, assumed-OK subset of APM for SMP systems, but I don't remember whether it was in 4.x or 5.x. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message