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>