From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 12 11:12:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from misha.cisco.com (misha.cisco.com [171.69.206.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524B7151A6 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mi@misha.cisco.com) Received: (from mi@localhost) by misha.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id OAA79735 for current@freebsd.org; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:12:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi) Message-Id: <199907121812.OAA79735@misha.cisco.com> Subject: Re: "objtrm" problem probably found (was Re: Stuck in "objtrm") In-Reply-To: <199907121741.KAA17837@ducky.net> from Mike Haertel at "Jul 12, 1999 10:41:26 am" To: current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: mi@aldan.algebra.com From: Mikhail Teterin X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL60 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Haertel once wrote: > Anyway, taking all that into account, I still agree with Dillon that > it is a better software solution to allow the same loadable drivers to > work for both UP and MP systems whenever possible. What's wrong, again with /modules and /modules.smp? If some third party only wants to provide ONE module, they can provide the smp one, right? The open-source ones, should be compileable one way or the other. The new hardware is so much faster for the benefit of applications, not the kernel :) -mi (without plans to retire his 486 and P90 anytime soon) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message