On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:38:57PM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote: > tags 449307 patch > thanks
Hi Kel > I couldn't reproduce the reporters problems, but I do kinda think it makes > since to use cpufreq-info to count cpu cores rather than /proc/*. At least > the maintainer is in charge of the output format in this case, and not at the > hands of the variable kernel of the day.... and guess how cpufreq-info reads the number of cores? :) Seriously, the output of /proc/cpuinfo is not going to change without a proper announce months before while I don't think the ouput of cpufreq-info has to be that reliable. I'm not really keen to apply this patch... -- mattia :wq! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
