From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266291AbUGAVg4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:36:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266297AbUGAVg1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:36:27 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]:54661 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266291AbUGAVex (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:34:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH][PPC64] lparcfg seq_file updates (pass2) From: Dave Hansen To: will schmidt Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , PPC64 External List , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard In-Reply-To: <40E47EE5.3020002@vnet.ibm.com> References: <40E47EE5.3020002@vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1088717644.21679.266.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:34:04 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 14:15, will schmidt wrote: > - Answering Dave's question on the lparcfg_count_active_processors() > function.. This is for the cases where we have some number of > virtual processors that are different than the number of physical > processors in the system. This doesnt happen on most systems, but > does occur in some of the partitioned configurations. I've > added a similar comment above the function. But, shouldn't the number of virtual processors be what shows up in sysfs and /proc/cpuinfo? I can understand exporting the number total in the machine, because that's not normally visible, but I think the number visible to Linux is redundant. -- Dave