From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 05:39:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D296616A503; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:39:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wes@opensail.org) Received: from softweyr.homeunix.net (cpe-24-161-160-202.san.res.rr.com [24.161.160.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F3943C9F; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:38:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wes@opensail.org) Received: from [204.68.178.35] (gullivere.softweyr.com [204.68.178.35]) (authenticated bits=0) by softweyr.homeunix.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBE5df3g070031; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:39:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@opensail.org) In-Reply-To: <4580DE4E.3080008@samsco.org> References: <200612140357.kBE3vY0Q053458@repoman.freebsd.org> <4580CD6A.5090802@samsco.org> <20061213201031.T26658@ns1.feral.com> <4580D3BB.7060504@samsco.org> <20061213210116.P26879@ns1.feral.com> <4580DE4E.3080008@samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Wes Peters Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:39:43 -0800 To: Scott Long X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on obie.softweyr.com Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, mjacob@FreeBSD.org, "David E. O'Brien" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:39:44 -0000 On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Scott Long wrote: > mjacob@freebsd.org wrote: >>> There wasn't a full switchover to SMP at 6.0 because an SMP >>> kernel on a >>> UP system incurs a measurable runtime overhead, and we wanted to >>> present >>> a system that showed the best of FreeBSD to people who wanted to >>> run it >> But David's point is that most AMD64 boxes *are* SMP, not UP. Is >> that wrong? > > 1. There are plenty of single core Opterons and Athlon64 chips > still in > service. Maybe AMD sells more SMP systems now than UP systems, but > their prior sales of UP systems didn't magically disappear overnight. > > 2. The decision was made in spring of 2005, before dual core chips > were > widely used. While we knew that such chips would be available, we > wanted to have consistency for the transition. > > 3. This change, had it not been reverted, would have broken the > consistency in the major release stream that we were trying to > achieve. > You spell it 'POLA', I spell it 'consistent'. Either way, I think > that > we both have a deep concern and appreciation for doing the right thing > and not pissing people off with surprises. > > 4. When 7.0 is released in 2007, the transition will be complete. These are all fine points, Scott is right about everything *except* calling David an idiot. David, who is not an idiot, politely backed out the change. Please end this thread now. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com