[PATCH 2/2] show_cpuinfo prints the name of the calling CPU, which i think is wrong.

[PATCH 2/2] show_cpuinfo prints the name of the calling CPU, which i think is wrong.

[Johannes Dickgreber]

Signed-off-by: Johannes Dickgreber <tanzy@gmx.de>
---
 arch/mips/kernel/proc.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c b/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c
index 9d60679..8897c53 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 	seq_printf(m, "processor\t\t: %ld\n", n);
 	sprintf(fmt, "cpu model\t\t: %%s V%%d.%%d%s\n",
 	        cpu_data[n].options & MIPS_CPU_FPU ? "  FPU V%d.%d" : "");
-	seq_printf(m, fmt, __cpu_name[smp_processor_id()],
+	seq_printf(m, fmt, __cpu_name[n],
 	                           (version >> 4) & 0x0f, version & 0x0f,
 	                           (fp_vers >> 4) & 0x0f, fp_vers & 0x0f);
 	seq_printf(m, "BogoMIPS\t\t: %lu.%02lu\n",
-- 
1.6.0.2

Re: [PATCH 2/2] show_cpuinfo prints the name of the calling CPU, which i think is wrong.

[Ralf Baechle]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 07:36:21PM +0200, Johannes Dickgreber wrote:

> Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] show_cpuinfo prints the name of the calling CPU, which i
> 	think is wrong.

Patch is correct and so I applied it.  Not a big issue though.  There is
only one system supported currently that supports a mix of different
processor types (IP27) and those are very similar so it doesn't cause
pain.

  Ralf

Re: [PATCH 2/2] show_cpuinfo prints the name of the calling CPU, which i think is wrong.

[David Daney]

Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 07:36:21PM +0200, Johannes Dickgreber wrote:
> 
>> Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] show_cpuinfo prints the name of the calling CPU, which i
>> 	think is wrong.
> 
> Patch is correct and so I applied it.  Not a big issue though.  There is
> only one system supported currently that supports a mix of different
> processor types (IP27) and those are very similar so it doesn't cause
> pain.
> 
>   Ralf

The patch is required on SMP systems as without it you get:

BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: cat/687
caller is show_cpuinfo+0xc4/0x500
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8111f4c8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x38
[<ffffffff812c235c>] debug_smp_processor_id+0xec/0x100
[<ffffffff8112de64>] show_cpuinfo+0xc4/0x500
[<ffffffff811d4128>] seq_read+0x2f8/0x420
[<ffffffff811fb658>] proc_reg_read+0x90/0xd8
[<ffffffff811b05ec>] vfs_read+0xbc/0x160
[<ffffffff811b0a88>] sys_read+0x50/0x98
[<ffffffff81129224>] handle_sysn32+0x44/0x84


David Daney

Re: [PATCH 2/2] show_cpuinfo prints the name of the calling CPU, which i think is wrong.

[Ralf Baechle]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:34:17PM -0700, David Daney wrote:

> The patch is required on SMP systems as without it you get:
>
> BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: cat/687
> caller is show_cpuinfo+0xc4/0x500
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8111f4c8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x38
> [<ffffffff812c235c>] debug_smp_processor_id+0xec/0x100
> [<ffffffff8112de64>] show_cpuinfo+0xc4/0x500
> [<ffffffff811d4128>] seq_read+0x2f8/0x420
> [<ffffffff811fb658>] proc_reg_read+0x90/0xd8
> [<ffffffff811b05ec>] vfs_read+0xbc/0x160
> [<ffffffff811b0a88>] sys_read+0x50/0x98
> [<ffffffff81129224>] handle_sysn32+0x44/0x84

Uh indeed, makes sense ...

  Ralf