Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>