Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 06/01/10 22:26, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Jes Sorensen wrote:
Handle 0x0401, DMI type 4, 32 bytes
Processor Information
- Socket Designation: CPU 1
+ Socket Designation: CPU01
smbios.c got
snprintf((char*)start, 6, "CPU%2x", cpu_number);
It should print "CPU
Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:26:12PM +0200, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Jes Sorensen wrote:
>Handle 0x0401, DMI type 4, 32 bytes
>Processor Information
>- Socket Designation: CPU 1
>+ Socket Designation: CPU01
smbios.c got
snprintf((char*)start, 6, "CPU%2x", cpu_num
On 06/01/10 22:26, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Handle 0x0401, DMI type 4, 32 bytes
>> Processor Information
>> - Socket Designation: CPU 1
>> + Socket Designation: CPU01
>
> smbios.c got
> snprintf((char*)start, 6, "CPU%2x", cpu_number);
>
> It should print "CPU
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:26:12PM +0200, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >Handle 0x0401, DMI type 4, 32 bytes
> >Processor Information
> >- Socket Designation: CPU 1
> >+ Socket Designation: CPU01
>
> smbios.c got
> snprintf((char*)start, 6, "CPU%2x", cpu_number);
>
Jes Sorensen wrote:
Handle 0x0401, DMI type 4, 32 bytes
Processor Information
- Socket Designation: CPU 1
+ Socket Designation: CPU01
smbios.c got
snprintf((char*)start, 6, "CPU%2x", cpu_number);
It should print "CPU 1" instead of "CPU01" because the
padding should be done with spa
On 06/01/10 07:34, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Sebastian Herbszt" writes:
>
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> I don't care much as long as we will not have "CPU :". It looks like
>>> something
>>> that can change after BIOS upgrade, so it is hard to believe Windows
>>> will stop working because of this
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:38:03PM +0200, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >I don't care much as long as we will not have "CPU :". It looks like
> >something
> >that can change after BIOS upgrade, so it is hard to believe Windows
> >will stop working because of this change.
>
> Ma
"Sebastian Herbszt" writes:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> I don't care much as long as we will not have "CPU :". It looks like
>> something
>> that can change after BIOS upgrade, so it is hard to believe Windows
>> will stop working because of this change.
>
> Maybe it could trigger the Windows activ
Gleb Natapov wrote:
I don't care much as long as we will not have "CPU :". It looks like something
that can change after BIOS upgrade, so it is hard to believe Windows
will stop working because of this change.
Maybe it could trigger the Windows activation process?
Sebastian
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:32:08AM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/28/10 17:44, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:24:47PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> I guess the Socket Designation in particular might have been done for a
> >> reason?
> >>
> > It was part of commit cf2affa6d
On 05/29/10 14:49, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> We were looking at the dmidecode output from qemu-kvm pre-seabios and
>> current qemu-kvm and noticed some of the strings have changed.
>>
>> The main problem with this is that certain OSes are quite sensitive to
>> system changes
On 05/28/10 17:44, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:24:47PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> I guess the Socket Designation in particular might have been done for a
>> reason?
>>
> It was part of commit cf2affa6de. And was a result of moving to
> snprintf() instead of direct string man
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:24:47PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> We were looking at the dmidecode output from qemu-kvm pre-seabios and
> current qemu-kvm and noticed some of the strings have changed.
[...]
> I wanted to check with the lists if there are any strong feelings about
> this, and whether
Jes Sorensen wrote:
Hi,
We were looking at the dmidecode output from qemu-kvm pre-seabios and
current qemu-kvm and noticed some of the strings have changed.
The main problem with this is that certain OSes are quite sensitive to
system changes and avoiding to change things unnecessarily would
pr
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:24:47PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> I guess the Socket Designation in particular might have been done for a
> reason?
>
It was part of commit cf2affa6de. And was a result of moving to
snprintf() instead of direct string manipulation. Before that
string was created like
15 matches
Mail list logo
