On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 3:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > > "CPUnn:" in /proc/cpuinfo instead of the usual "processor NN:".
> >> >
> >> > not sure if worth a reroll, but the "usual" syntax is "processor : NN"
> > ...
> > Inclusion of the word "usual" is such a minor flaw in the commit
> > message that I doubt it warrants a reroll and the associated cost on
> > reviewers and on the maintainer (Junio), especially since it does not
> > negatively impact the intent conveyed by the commit messages nor the
> > correctness of the actual patch.
> >
> > As such, I'm not worried about it. Whether Junio reads this and wants
> > to correct it in his tree is up to him, of course.
>
> I think "usual" is not what was pointed out. The order between the
> colon and NN is.
Yes, I understood that, but it is the word "usual" which makes the
text "processor NN:" questionable since "processor NN:" is not
typical. Without the word "usual", stating "processor NN:" is not
especially problematic since the existing regex (which is being
changed by this patch) _does_ match "processor NN:" (among others such
as "processor:").
If we want to be more accurate, better wording might be:
On SPARC systems running Linux, individual processors are denoted
with "CPUnn:" in /proc/cpuinfo, however, the regexp in ncores()
matches only "processor:" or "processor NN:". As a result, no
processors are found on SPARC. Address this shortcoming by
extending the regexp to also match lines with "CPUnn:".
but I doubt it is worth a reroll.
