On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:26 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010 06:52:32 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > I might be able to find some hardware still lying around here that uses an
> > > i810. Not sure unless I go hunting it. But I get the impression that if
> > > the kernel is a single-CPU kernel there is not any problem anyway? Don't
> > > distros offer a non-smp kernel as an installation option in case the user
> > > needs it? So in reality how big a problem is this?
> >
> > Not anymore, which is my old point of making a fuss. Nowadays in the
> > modern distro world, we supply a single kernel that can at runtime
> > decide if its running on SMP or UP and rewrite the text section
> > appropriately with locks etc. Its like magic, and something like
> > marking drivers as BROKEN_ON_SMP at compile time is really wrong when
> > what you want now is a runtime warning if someone tries to hotplug a
> > CPU with a known iffy driver loaded or if someone tries to load the
> > driver when we are already in SMP mode.
>
> We could make the driver run-time non-SMP by adding
>
> if (num_present_cpus() > 1) {
> pr_err("i810 no longer supports SMP\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> to the init function. That would cover the vast majority of the
> users of i810 hardware, I guess.
I think we also need to cover the PREEMPT case too. But that could be a
compile time check, since you can't boot a preempt kernel and make it
non preempt.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
