On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:22:35AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:37:57AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > Hi Gautham-
> >
> > I believe that the powerpc behavior was established before
> > cpu_present_map was introduced.
>
> Ok. I guess the same is the reason with a fe
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:37:57AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Hi Gautham-
>
> I believe that the powerpc behavior was established before
> cpu_present_map was introduced.
Ok. I guess the same is the reason with a few other architectures like
s390.
>
>
> > I am not entirely surely if it's du
Hi Gautham-
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> Looking at the topology_init() code, I observe that the meaning of
> the cpuX/ directory entries in /sys/devices/system/cpu/ might be
> different for different architectures.
>
> Looks like, in case of i386, ia64, m32, mips etc, the cpuX directory entries
Hi!
Looking at the topology_init() code, I observe that the meaning of
the cpuX/ directory entries in /sys/devices/system/cpu/ might be
different for different architectures.
Looks like, in case of i386, ia64, m32, mips etc, the cpuX directory entries
represent the "present cpus".
However, in c
4 matches
Mail list logo