Re: SMP, again

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: SMP, again
From: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 98 21:48:31 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] m0yqkql-000sipC@eyry.econ.iastate.edu>
References: <[🔎] 3597F5AB.B4127E4B@rtd.com>

steve wrote,

>   From what I've experienced, this should be 

> SMP=1

Ahah.  recompiling.  So this is a 1 means use it, but defaults to 0/don't,
rather than the number of processors?

thanks

rick

-- 
These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer.



--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


--  
Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SMP, again
  - From: Steve Mayer <smayer@rtd.com>

References:
- Re: SMP, again
  - From: Steve Mayer <smayer@rtd.com>

Prev by Date: Re: SMP, again
Next by Date: Modem slowdown after hamm upgrade?
Previous by thread: Re: SMP, again
Next by thread: Re: SMP, again
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread