On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:46:15AM -0700, Pandita, Vikram wrote:
> I mostly work with ARM Soc - specifically on OMAP. SMP multi core
> systems in ARM-v7 world started to show up only few years back -
> unlike x86 world.
This is exactly the thing: other SMP vendors have made it so far without
Borislav/Kay
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > That would be needed, I guess. We easily have server systems with more
> > than 255 CPUs. It will only be a matter of time, that the number of
> > CPUs will
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> That would be needed, I guess. We easily have server systems with more
> than 255 CPUs. It will only be a matter of time, that the number of
> CPUs will increase for everybody, I guess.
Actually, AFAICR, we already have SGI machines
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Pandita, Vikram wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Pandita, Vikram
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Venu Byravarasu
>>> wrote:
>>
As having Macro locally in the file of interest
Kay
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Pandita, Vikram
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Venu Byravarasu
>> wrote:
>
>>> As having Macro locally in the file of interest would serve the purpose,
>>> Why to change the printk code?
>>
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania
wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 02:16:18 -0700, Vikram Pandita
> wrote:
>> +static size_t print_cpuid(u8 cpuid, char *buf)
>> +{
>> +
>> + if (!printk_cpuid)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (!buf)
>> + return 4;
>> +
>
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Pandita, Vikram wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Venu Byravarasu
> wrote:
>> As having Macro locally in the file of interest would serve the purpose,
>> Why to change the printk code?
>
> As stated, the logic followed is exactly similar to well proven
> -Original Message-
> From: Pandita, Vikram [mailto:vikram.pand...@ti.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 3:07 PM
> To: Venu Byravarasu
> Cc: gre...@linuxfoundation.org; k...@vrfy.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; Mike Turquette; Vimarsh Zutshi
> Subject: Re: [
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 02:16:18 -0700, Vikram Pandita wrote:
> From: Vikram Pandita
>
> Introduce config option to enable CPU id reporting for printk() calls.
>
> Example logs with this option enabled look like:
> [1] [2.328613] usbcore: registered new interface driver libusual
> [1] [
>> To: Vikram Pandita; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; k...@vrfy.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mike Turquette; Vimarsh Zutshi
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] printk: add option to print cpu id
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.k
r.kernel.org; Mike Turquette; Vimarsh Zutshi
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] printk: add option to print cpu id
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
> > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Vikram Pandita
> > S
kram Pandita; Mike Turquette; Vimarsh
> Zutshi
> Subject: [PATCH v2] printk: add option to print cpu id
>
> From: Vikram Pandita
>
> Introduce config option to enable CPU id reporting for printk() calls.
>
> Example logs with this option enabled look like:
> [1] [2.328
From: Vikram Pandita
Introduce config option to enable CPU id reporting for printk() calls.
Example logs with this option enabled look like:
[1] [2.328613] usbcore: registered new interface driver libusual
[1] [2.335418] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbtest
[1] [
From: Vikram Pandita vikram.pand...@ti.com
Introduce config option to enable CPU id reporting for printk() calls.
Example logs with this option enabled look like:
[1] [2.328613] usbcore: registered new interface driver libusual
[1] [2.335418] usbcore: registered new interface driver
; Vimarsh
Zutshi
Subject: [PATCH v2] printk: add option to print cpu id
From: Vikram Pandita vikram.pand...@ti.com
Introduce config option to enable CPU id reporting for printk() calls.
Example logs with this option enabled look like:
[1] [2.328613] usbcore: registered new interface
; Vimarsh Zutshi
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] printk: add option to print cpu id
-Original Message-
From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Vikram Pandita
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 2:46 PM
To: gre...@linuxfoundation.org; k
...@linuxfoundation.org; k...@vrfy.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mike Turquette; Vimarsh Zutshi
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] printk: add option to print cpu id
-Original Message-
From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Vikram
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 02:16:18 -0700, Vikram Pandita vikram.pand...@ti.com wrote:
From: Vikram Pandita vikram.pand...@ti.com
Introduce config option to enable CPU id reporting for printk() calls.
Example logs with this option enabled look like:
[1] [2.328613] usbcore: registered new
-Original Message-
From: Pandita, Vikram [mailto:vikram.pand...@ti.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 3:07 PM
To: Venu Byravarasu
Cc: gre...@linuxfoundation.org; k...@vrfy.org; linux-
ker...@vger.kernel.org; Mike Turquette; Vimarsh Zutshi
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: add option
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Pandita, Vikram vikram.pand...@ti.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Venu Byravarasu vbyravar...@nvidia.com
wrote:
As having Macro locally in the file of interest would serve the purpose,
Why to change the printk code?
As stated, the logic followed
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania
nik...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 02:16:18 -0700, Vikram Pandita vikram.pand...@ti.com
wrote:
+static size_t print_cpuid(u8 cpuid, char *buf)
+{
+
+ if (!printk_cpuid)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (!buf)
+
Kay
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Pandita, Vikram vikram.pand...@ti.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Venu Byravarasu vbyravar...@nvidia.com
wrote:
As having Macro locally in the file of interest would serve the
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Pandita, Vikram vikram.pand...@ti.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Pandita, Vikram vikram.pand...@ti.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Venu Byravarasu vbyravar...@nvidia.com
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
That would be needed, I guess. We easily have server systems with more
than 255 CPUs. It will only be a matter of time, that the number of
CPUs will increase for everybody, I guess.
Actually, AFAICR, we already have SGI machines
Borislav/Kay
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
That would be needed, I guess. We easily have server systems with more
than 255 CPUs. It will only be a matter of time, that the number of
CPUs
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:46:15AM -0700, Pandita, Vikram wrote:
I mostly work with ARM Soc - specifically on OMAP. SMP multi core
systems in ARM-v7 world started to show up only few years back -
unlike x86 world.
This is exactly the thing: other SMP vendors have made it so far without
26 matches
Mail list logo
