Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:25:08 -0400 From: "Ben Kaduk" <minimarmot@gmail.com> To: "Garance A Drosehn" <gad@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c Message-ID: <47d0403c0709292025o430e000dl6ccb20b417858db@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <p0624080ac324ae0749a5@128.113.24.47> References: <200709271639.l8RGdREd032105@repoman.freebsd.org> <p0624080ac324ae0749a5@128.113.24.47>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/29/07, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org> wrote: > At 4:39 PM +0000 9/27/07, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern sched_ule.c > > Log: > > - ... > > - Assert that we're not trying to compile ULE on an unsupported > > architecture. To date, I believe only i386 and amd64 have > > implemented the third cpu switch argument required. > > > > Approved by: re > > Does this mean that I should not switch to ULE on my single-CPU PowerPC > mini-Mac? > I was under the impression that BSD is preferred to ULE for single-processor systems, irregardless of the processor architecture. -Ben Kaduk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47d0403c0709292025o430e000dl6ccb20b417858db>