Re: Wrong number of core_siblings in sysfs for Athlon64 X2

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Friday 17 February 2006 03:10, Zan Lynx wrote:

> It seems to me that this could be confusing for a lot of people who are
> casually browsing through sysfs.  Why not name core_siblings something
> like core_sibling_bitmap? 

Because it's already a fixed ABI that is put in stone.

The only way to do what you want would be to add a new field
and keep the old one alone, but frankly your rationale for 
it ("could be confusing to someone") doesn't seem convincing enough 
for such a thing.  Especially since each sysfs field can
cost considerable memory when a dentry and a inode have to be allocated
for it.

I guess if you worry about such people a better way to help
them would be to write them a frontend that displays
the information in there in nice form.

-Andi