On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 01:08:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 04:08:02AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > I believe that about two years ago we broke something which caused quite a
> > large number of people to need noapic. Is that the case with any of your
> > machines? Do you know if they run 2.6.ancient without noapic?
>
> My recollection is that we shifted from "Enable the apic even if the
> BIOS disabled it" to "Only use the apic if the BIOS didn't disable it"
> around that time, which meant that distributions could actually turn on
> apic-on-up support without breaking everything. That might correspond to
> what you're seeing.
If memory serves correctly, that was circa 2.6.10, back in these commits..
commit a068ea13d1db406e15c346e93530343f6e70184c
Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Date: Sun Oct 10 05:21:08 2004 -0400
[ACPI] If BIOS disabled the LAPIC, believe it by default.
"lapic" is available to force enabling the LAPIC
in the event you know more than your BIOS vendor.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3238
commit 2fcfece90db9643b6f30a7ad343898a2871e6a81
Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Date: Sat Oct 9 20:12:45 2004 -0400
[ACPI] Don't enable LAPIC when the BIOS disabled it.
Doing so apparently breaks every Dell on Earth.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3238
But those changes relate to the local APIC, which 'noapic' shouldn't
have any effect on should it ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
