Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Dec 1998 03:32:30 -0500 | From | Brian Ristuccia <> | Subject | Re: smp_processor_id()? |
| |
On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 04:28:10PM +1130, Paul Rusty Russell wrote: > In message <19981203114846.L435@osiris.ml.org> you write: > > > If this prints 1, that's the problem. > > > > It's very possible that this routine is getting wrong information. My linux > > box has two CPU's, but they're numbered 0 and 4 for some reason. I will > > apply the patch this afternoon and try again. > > You mean that smp_processor_id() returns 0 and 4? >
Not exactly sure. Here's what /proc/cpuinfo has to say:
processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 1 model name : Pentium Pro stepping : 9 cpu MHz : 198.667014 cache size : 256 KB ...
processor : 4 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 1 model name : Pentium Pro stepping : 9 cpu MHz : 198.667014 cache size : 256 KB ...
> I assumed smp_processor_id() < smp_num_cpus: SMP hackers, is this > false? > > If so, I have to find a new upper bound for smp_processor_id() for > SMP, or rewrite much of ip_fw.c... >
-- Brian Ristuccia brianr@osiris.ml.org bristucc@baynetworks.com bristucc@cs.uml.edu
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |