On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Ley Foon Tan <lftan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 15 July 2014 16:45:47 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>>> +static void *cpuinfo_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long i = *pos;
>>> +
>>> + return i < num_possible_cpus() ? (void *) (i + 1) : NULL;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void *cpuinfo_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
>>> +{
>>> + ++*pos;
>>> + return cpuinfo_start(m, pos);
>>> +}
>>
>> Do you actually have SMP support?
> Not.
>
>
>>> +const struct seq_operations cpuinfo_op = {
>>> + .start = cpuinfo_start,
>>> + .next = cpuinfo_next,
>>> + .stop = cpuinfo_stop,
>>> + .show = show_cpuinfo
>>> +};
>>
>> If not, you can use single_start/next/stop here rather than defining your own.
> Okay, I will look into your suggestion.
> Thanks.
I have tried this. But, it seem that we can't use
single_start/next/stop here. They are static functions to
fs/seq_file.c.
Regards
Ley Foon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
