>>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:24:40 -0800, "Seth, Rohit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
