Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:56:29 +0100 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] Transition /proc/cpuinfo -> sysfs |
| |
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:03:29PM -0600, Lamont R. Peterson wrote:
> > - On an HT setup, do we want link(s) pointing to sibling(s)? > > I like this idea, even if it is not necessary because siblings should be > listed sequentially together. i.e. two physical CPUs with HT would be > cpu0, cpu1, cpu2 & cpu3. Obviously, cpu0 & cpu1 go together and cpu2 & > cpu3 also go together.
I'll bet *any* userspace code wanting to know this info would be simpler to write if you do the cpuid calls in the app and parse internally than walking sysfs to form an interpretation.
> > - Instead of dumping the "flags" field, should we just dump cpu > > registers as hex strings and let the user decode (as the comment > > for the x86_cap_flags implies. > > I like this. In fact, if it goes this way, then I will write a > "cpuinfo" program that will do all the decoding as a generic tool.
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/x86info/
Ok, its x86/amd64 specific, but it does all this parsing and the like where it should be -- userspace.
Dave
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |