Hi Tony, * Luck, Tony <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>: > > I noticed that this patch wasn't in the git tree you sent to > > Linus for 2.6.26. I don't remember seeing a NACK though -- is > > there something that I could rework to make it more acceptable? > > I'm mostly ok with this version of the patch. I didn't see any > comments from the linux-kernel crowd on the whether they are fond > of the new API ("slot" file in cpu/cpuN/topology/) and hate to make > the presumption that because they are silent that they agree. > > The "mostly ok" part would transform to "fully ok" if there were a way > to make sure the "slot" files only appeared on systems where they are > meaningful (i.e. have a value other then -1 in them). If there is > an easy way to make this happen, then it would make me happier (less > clutter in /sys) and perhaps others too (since this API is only useful > on large systems where "slot" is meaningful, and there is generally > some bias from the community at large about adding interfaces that > aren't needed for normal desktop/laptop systems). Yeah, I agree that the first few attempts weren't so great. I don't really like the idea of adding a new 'slot' file to sysfs either. I reworked this patch to play nicer with the current topology stuff. I've also included a cleanup patch that you might be happy to see (removes the noisy ia64_sal_pltid failed with -1 printk). Tested on an hp rx4640 with Madisons and verified that I actually get sane output in /proc/cpuinfo: [root@max ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep processor processor : 0 processor : 1 processor : 2 processor : 3 [root@max ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep physical physical id: 0 physical id: 1 physical id: 2 physical id: 3 Also tested on a Tiger and verified that /proc/cpuinfo remains unchanged, and no useless printk's appear during boot. Thanks. /ac -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |