From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 05:52:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A11F16A417; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:52:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC5A43CA4; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:50:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (phobos.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kBE5qAM5018894; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:52:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4580E689.4070000@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:52:09 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910 SeaMonkey/1.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wes Peters 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org 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-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:52:18 -0000 Wes Peters wrote: > > 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. > I respect Matt's questions on the topic, and I hope that I am providing reasonable answers and conversation on it. Scott