Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:34:50 +0200 | From | Dominik Kubla <> | Subject | Re: Patch for 2.2.10 (Quelle surprise!) |
| |
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 05:58:47PM +0100, Alex Buell wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Dominik Kubla wrote: > > > Well, while you're at it: it would be nice it uname(1) "-p" would > > return the processor type as on Solaris et al. Of course this involves > > glibc and sh-utils, not the kernel, but when implementing this feature > > you could just keep an eye on what is needed for this to work > > 'uname -m' returns the processor type. On my machine that gives > you 'i686'.
Wrong: uname -m returns the machine type, uname -p returns the actual cpu type. Just check GNU uname --help...
> Do you mean uname -p would return 'Intel'? 'AMD' and so on?
No. We have it wrong: uname -m should always return the generic architecture type (eg. i386, or alpha) while uname -p should return the actual processor (eg. i386, i486, ev6 or K6-II).
> > Don't let yourself becoming discouraged by thos procfs proponents: a > > lot of people are with you on this on! > > I'm still working on it, this is only the beginning. =)
Glad to hear that...
Dominik
- 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/
| |