Bug#449307: [PATCH]: use cpufreq-info to count cores

2007-12-14 Thread Mattia Dongili
tags 449307 + patch thanks On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:07:31PM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote: ... > > This would be cpufreq specific knowledge that can fit into cpufrequtils, > > other than that I can't really see the point of implementing this > > generic cpu-index thing in cpufreq-info when this inf

Bug#449307: [PATCH]: use cpufreq-info to count cores

2007-12-09 Thread Kel Modderman
tags 449307 - patch thanks On Sunday 09 December 2007 16:42:42 Mattia Dongili wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 10:09:28AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 December 2007 09:54:30 Mattia Dongili wrote: > > ... > > > > and guess how cpufreq-info reads the number of cores? :) > > > > Fr

Bug#449307: [PATCH]: use cpufreq-info to count cores

2007-12-08 Thread Mattia Dongili
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 10:09:28AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote: > On Wednesday 05 December 2007 09:54:30 Mattia Dongili wrote: ... > > and guess how cpufreq-info reads the number of cores? :) > > From /proc/stat. haha, sorry... funny thing is that I wrote that code... I should have known about it.

Bug#449307: [PATCH]: use cpufreq-info to count cores

2007-12-04 Thread Kel Modderman
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 09:54:30 Mattia Dongili wrote: > 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

Bug#449307: [PATCH]: use cpufreq-info to count cores

2007-12-04 Thread Mattia Dongili
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 outpu

Bug#449307: [PATCH]: use cpufreq-info to count cores

2007-12-04 Thread Kel Modderman
tags 449307 patch thanks 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...