From d31ddaa1722793228b364e87b6c589023b348798 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:25:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] x86, x86_64: dual core proc-cpuinfo and sibling-map fix - broken sibling_map setup in x86_64 - grouping all the core and HT related cpuinfo fields. We are reasonably sure that adding new cpuinfo fields after "siblings" field, will not cause any app failure. Thats because today's /proc/cpuinfo format is completely different on x86, x86_64 and we haven't heard of any x86 app breakage because of this issue. Grouping these fields will result in more or less common format on all architectures (ia64, x86 and x86_64) and will cause less confusion. Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c | 9 ++------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) (limited to 'arch/i386/kernel') diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c index 0f1125b15b7..4f28eba7fb8 100644 --- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c @@ -98,6 +98,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]); seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings); + seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]); + seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores); } #endif @@ -130,13 +132,6 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) c->loops_per_jiffy/(500000/HZ), (c->loops_per_jiffy/(5000/HZ)) % 100); -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP - /* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of - breaking user space parsers. */ - seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]); - seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores); -#endif - return 0; } -- cgit v1.2.3