>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:22:44 -0800, "Seth, Rohit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> said:
>> Changing the formatting of /proc/cpuinfo only runs the risk of
>> existing tools, without benefit to properly written applications.
Rohit> I hope there are not that many apps that have this
Rohit> behavior...particularly if they are (/want to be) portable.
I _hope_ the same, but what's the point to even run the risk of
breaking existing apps when there is no real benefit?
Rohit> I think we should have some consistency (wherever possible)
Rohit> in /proc/cpuinfo fields across architectures. This will help
Rohit> applications writers. Currently siblings and cpu core fields
Rohit> are already added for i386 and x86_64.
Hmmh, I don't see a "cpu core id" field in the x86 code. Am I missing
something?
Printing the same number (# siblings/cores) for each CPU over and over
just seems stupid, especially when instead you can print a useful
value (core id/thread id).
--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
