Lustre devel - Jan 2007 - [Bug 11636] New: Remove non-SMP kernel configs?

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11636



It seems our non-SMP kernel configs are actually set to enable SMP, and we
don''t
use them anyway.  I propose we remove them.
>From #cfs:
13:13 < nathan> scjody, green - why are the
kernel_patches/kernel_configs/*smp t
he same as the non-smp ones?  
13:16 < scjody> nathan: hmm, interesting.
13:16 < scjody> I think the question is really "why are the non-SMP
ones the sam
e as the SMP ones?"
13:16 < nathan> right.
13:17 < scjody> Looks like a bug to me.
13:17 < scjody> I''d actually be in favour of dropping the non-SMP
ones entirely
- we don''t use them ourselves, and I question their usefulness in
general.
13:17 < scjody> (especially given that they''ve likely been broken
for a long tim
e without any complaints.)
13:18 < nathan> I agree.  Except kernel-2.4.21-rhel-2.4-i686 with smp
doesn''t bu
ild with our current patches.
13:19 < nathan> but I suppose that''s another issue.
13:19 < nathan> are these config files used by ltest?
13:20 < scjody> The -smp ones are.
13:20 < scjody> Does kernel-2.4.21-rhel-2.4-i686 without SMP build?
13:20 < scjody> I would guess not...
13:22 < nathan> seems to get farther
13:23 < nathan> scjody, if only -smp ones are used, and non-smp ones are
smp any
how, that seems a good argument to drop the non-smp.
13:24 < scjody> nathan: Yes.. I didn''t realize the non-smp ones
were really smp.
13:24 < nathan> looks like patchless is different, but the others I
checked are
not.
13:26 < scjody> OK.  I''ll deal with this sometime soon.