> On Sat, Nov 14, 1998 at 11:33:24PM -0500, Alex Buell wrote:
>
> > I've bugged people in the past about it, we really really really do
> > need to standardise /proc/cpuinfo for all architectures. Right now
> > it's a hotchpotch of different terms. What a mess.
>
> Why?
>
> /proc/cpuinfo is architecture specific -- because some architectures
> are quite different to others.
You didn't read my posting carefully enough. What I said was to have the
common bits of the /proc/cpuinfo file standardised, ie. same field formats
for processor type et. al, and at the end of the /proc/cpuinfo file, put
extensions specific to each architecture. Problem solved.
It's necessary, because many of the problems comes from having to write
ugly architecture specific parsing code for the /proc/cpuinfo. In the
interests of portability, it would be VERY time saving if the same code
that can parse /proc/cpuinfo on say, Intel will also work on Alpha, PPC,
MIPS etc.
Cheers,
Alex
-- /\_/\ Legalise cannabis now! ( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today! > ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - *new* - rewritten for text browser users!
Linux tahallah.demon.co.uk 2.1.129 #63 SMP Sat Nov 21 23:52:03 EST 1998 Two Intel Pentium Pro 166MHz processors, 331.78 total bogomips, 48M RAM System library 2.0.6
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/