From owner-freebsd-arch  Wed May 24 11:46:19 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C632C37BD3C
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com)
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07977;
	Wed, 24 May 2000 12:46:04 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200005241846.MAA07977@berserker.bsdi.com>
To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware 
From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:46:04 -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

}
}Why not just make it conditional on the "cpu I386_CPU" line in the
}kernel Makefile?  The comment already reads:
}
}# deleting the specification for CPUs you don't need to use may make
}# parts of the system run faster.  This is especially true removing
}# I386_CPU.

Technically this works just fine. 

I personally don't understand the implications of saying that a
kernel build is necessary. I'm not saying it is bad, I just saying
I don't understand. If people say this is acceptable then this
is fine.

Chuck


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