From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE2ADE59A for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:51:52 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] sysfs cache code rewrite From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Nathan Lynch In-Reply-To: <20090106212533.GB7376@localdomain> References: <20081224045554.GA6958@localdomain> <20090106212533.GB7376@localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:51:42 +1100 Message-Id: <1231311102.14860.80.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:25 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote: > Please unsubscribe me from... wait, that's not what I meant to say. > > Any thoughts or questions on this one? I posted this right before the > holidays so my feelings aren't hurt by the lack of response (yet!) > > To summarize why I think this should go in 2.6.29: > - Userspace will now be able to determine the true cache topology > (the current code doesn't tell you which caches are shared between > CPUs). > - More complete information will be presented on systems that use > [di]-cache-block-size properties instead of [di]-cache-line-size. > - While overall LOC has increased, the documentation is better, and the > functions are much shorter and less complex. I'm pretty happy about it. However, it fails build when merged on top of linus current upstream due to some cpumask changes. I don't know quite the detail of the new cpumask stuff ... It could be as simple as passing a pointer instead of the value in the cpumask_scnprintf call though... Can you check and produce a new patch pls ? Cheers, Ben.