Hi, On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 15:11 -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > 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. So, could we get this series merged now or is there anything missing? Thanks, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
