On Wednesday 16 March 2016, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:57:26AM +0100, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> > > + if (cpu) {
> > > + free(desc->modelname);
> > > + desc->modelname = cpu;
> > > + }
> > > + if (revision) {
> > > + free(desc->model);
> > > + desc->model = revision;
> > > + }
> > > +
>
> The problem I see is that Linux kernel does not provide any unified
> abstraction for /proc/cpuinfo, the file is generated individually by
> architecture specific code, so the field names are very arch
> specific. (use "git grep show_cpuinfo" in kernel tree to see more)
>
> For example "revision" is no PPC specific, it's also used by ia64.
> Alpha uses "cpu revision" and "cpu model", etc.
Yes, but the probability is high that the new code will do it better.
Like in sparc case.
> The ideal solution (for v2.29) would be to have more
> read_cpuinfo_<arch>() functions to hide the differences.
>
> > Watching this again today I think it could be even better to add
> > cpu and revision members to the struct and move both if conditions
> > to the printing code section.
>
> Do you want to send a new version of the patch?
Yep.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
