venom at DarkStar.sns.it
Thu Jan 3 15:52:53 PST 2002
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:53:38 -0500 (EST)
> From: Stuart Anderson <anderson at metrolink.com>
> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch at caldera.de>
> Cc: lsb-discuss at lists.linuxbase.org, lsb-spec at lists.linuxbase.org
> Subject: Re: LSB1.1: /proc/cpuinfo
> Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:03:56 +0100
> Resent-From: lsb-spec at lists.linuxbase.org
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This differs from current practice on some Linux architectures, e.g.
> > PowerPc, ARM or Sparc/SMP.
> Can you please provide some examples? All of the examples I was able to aquire
> fit the description (actually, it was written to fit the exmaples 8-)).
> > Also /proc/cpuinfo is one of the abuses of the Linux /proc filesystem
> > that might be removed in the mid-term timeframe (e.g. Linux 2.6).
> > Please do not document anything in /proc besides the per-process
> > information.
> I'd like avoid /proc completely, but we needed a way to determine what
> processor features are available (especially on IA32). Without this, we have
> to choose the i486 feature set as the least common denominator (ie no MMX, etc).
what about x86info ?
then there are problems about the other processors...
More information about the lsb-discuss