RE: [patch]:MC/MT enabling/identification for IA-64

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2005-02-25 12:27:05
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:24:40 -0800, "Seth, Rohit" <> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Thu Feb 24 20:27:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:36 EST