Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:16:38 +0200
From:      Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com>
To:        Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com>
Cc:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 identcpu.c initcpu.c locore.s  machdep.c mp_machdep.c src/sys/i386/include asnames.h md_var.h
Message-ID:  <3E303186.D291E716@portaone.com>
References:  <200301222014.h0MKEr8k018331@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030123085352.GS18342@survey.codeburst.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Richards wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 12:14:53PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> > jhb         2003/01/22 12:14:53 PST
> >
> >   Modified files:        (Branch: RELENG_4)
> >     sys/i386/i386        identcpu.c initcpu.c locore.s machdep.c
> >                          mp_machdep.c
> >     sys/i386/include     asnames.h md_var.h
> >   Log:
> >   MFC: Precursors to simple hyperthreading support and sync with current:
> 
> Is it a good idea to do this in 4?
> 
> We should stop moving new features into 4 for 2 reasons, a) I've always
> been against feature development of -stable, but b) we need to encourage
> take-up of our latest branch and the less "modern" 4 is the more likely
> people will be to migrate around 5.2. The SMP work won't be such a huge
> draw since so few people have SMP machines.

I disagree in this particular case. Since HT processors are already
available on the market, their support is crucial for users that need
more raw CPU power today, not three or four months from now, when 5.x
stabilizes enough to be useable in a production environment.

-Maxim

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E303186.D291E716>