>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:24:40 -0800, "Seth, Rohit" <rohit.seth@intel.com> said: Rohit> I agree that the format of these fields should match the Rohit> format of other fields in cpuinfo.....though it will be nice Rohit> if we have the same format as that of i386 cpuinfo output. I'm not sure there is much point to that: (a) The contents of /proc/cpuinfo is by definition architecture-specific (b) Applications _should_ allow any whitespace when parsing /proc/cpuinfo, so in properly-written applications, it shouldn't matter whether whitespace or tabs are used. Changing the formatting of /proc/cpuinfo only runs the risk of existing tools, without benefit to properly written applications. Rohit> I was thinking of this information as something that apps can Rohit> use to find the information about which logical execution Rohit> units (leu) are threads on the same core, which leu are on Rohit> the same package and so on. This is similar to i386(HT Rohit> enabled processors) where siblings gives the number of Rohit> threads on the same package. I'm not a fan of including redudant info in /proc files. Rohit> Typically the field names in various PAL call related data Rohit> structures match their definition in SDM.... I don't think we need to constrain ourselves too much to what the PAL names are. That code is part of the kernel and it should be readable. --david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Thu Feb 24 20:27:23 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:36 EST