Gents,

Here we go again.

I overlooked that other architectures had added a space after the vendor name, 
so here's yet another patch that adds a space after "ARM".  Otherwise, it seems 
that statistic data collection by BOINC sites gets confused.

Cheers,


-- 
__________________________________________________________________
Evandro Menezes    Austin, TX      http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com





>________________________________
> From: Evandro Menezes <[email protected]>
>To: Eric J Korpela <[email protected]> 
>Cc: Joachim Fritzsch <[email protected]>; David Anderson (UCBerkeley) 
><[email protected]>; "[email protected]" 
><[email protected]> 
>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 3:01 PM
>Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] BOINC on ARM
> 
>
>Eric,
>
>I think that it's better to not make assumptions, so I 
check for unistd.h, where sysconf() is defined, and qualify each 
_SC_LEVEL*_SIZE as you suggested.
>
>Please, review the new patch in attach.
>
>Thanks, 
>
>
>-- 
>__________________________________________________________________
>Evandro Menezes    Austin, TX      http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com
>
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Eric J Korpela <[email protected]>
>>To: Evandro Menezes <[email protected]> 
>>Cc: Joachim Fritzsch <[email protected]>; David Anderson 
>>(UCBerkeley) <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" 
>><[email protected]> 
>>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:43 AM
>>Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] BOINC on ARM
>> 
>>
>>I think you'll need to preface the block with both 
>>#ifdef HAVE_SYSCONF and each if sysconf call with "#ifdef  
>>_SC_LEVEL1_DCACHE_SIZE" or similar.
>>
>>
>>Of you could go with "#if defined(__arm__) && defined (__linux__)" if you're 
>>sure every arm linux will have the right sysconf macros.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Evandro Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Joachim,
>>>
>>>After I posted the patch I wondered if I should have qualified the calls to 
>>>sysconf() to figure the cache out with HAVE_SYSCONF or some such autoconf 
>>>variable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for the review.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>__________________________________________________________________
>>>Evandro Menezes    Austin, TX      http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>> From: Joachim Fritzsch <[email protected]>
>>>>To: Evandro Menezes <[email protected]>; David Anderson (UCBerkeley) 
>>>><[email protected]>
>>>>Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Rom Walton 
>>>><[email protected]>
>>>>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 3:40 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] BOINC on ARM
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for sharing this! I had those changes on my agenda as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The parsing of the cache size breaks the build for me, so I created a patch 
>>>>file that omits these parts[1].
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I tested it on two devices: the Client gets the proper CPU description now. 
>>>>This can help targeting specific ARM features (e.g. NEON) with the project 
>>>>scheduler.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>David: Could you please review the patch and commit it to the Client code?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[1] https://github.com/novarow/AndroidBOINC/blob/master/native/diffs_android/gitmaster171212_arm_host-info.patch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Evandro Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It seems that ARM is the little CPU that could and is become ubiquitous, 
>>>>which makes it a candidate to run BOINC.  Now, granted that it doesn't have 
>>>>a stunning single-thread performance, yet BOINC used to run on processors 
>>>>of similar performance not too long ago.  However, it may be the ideal 
>>>>procesor to run NCI BOINC apps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyways, I've been playing with BOINC on the ARM that powers my NAS and it 
>>>>>works quite alright and there already are a handful of projects supporting 
>>>>>ARM ( http://bit.ly/Zxnv4W ).
>>>>>
>>>>>However, it seems that a few simple changes to the code are necessary at 
>>>>>first to deal with properly identifying the host.  I propose this patch in 
>>>>>attach to address this shortcoming.
>>>>>
>>>>>I haven't tested it on many ARM hosts, actually, just my one such host, 
>>>>>but I based it on what the information provided by the Linux kernel for 
>>>>>ARM that's very well defined and established.
>>>>>
>>>>>HTH
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>__________________________________________________________________
>>>>>Evandro Menezes    Austin, TX      http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>boinc_dev mailing list
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
>>>>>To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
>>>>>(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>boinc_dev mailing list
>>>[email protected]
>>>http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
>>>To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
>>>(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Attachment: hostinfo_unix.diff
Description: Binary data

_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.

Reply via email to