From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53904 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OIzTq-0006Ey-Kk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 03:32:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OIzTp-00006u-MJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 03:32:14 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5902)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OIzTp-00006T-Ey
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 03:32:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4C0365F8.2070703@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:32:08 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4BFFE03F.40606@redhat.com> <20100528154402.GB3604@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100528154402.GB3604@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [SeaBIOS] SMBIOS strings
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: seabios@seabios.org, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 05/28/10 17:44, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:24:47PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> I guess the Socket Designation in particular might have been done for a
>> reason?
>>
> It was part of commit cf2affa6de. And was a result of moving to
> snprintf() instead of direct string manipulation. Before that
> string was created like that:
>     memcpy((char *)start, "CPU  " "\0" "" "\0" "", 7);
>        ((char *)start)[4] = cpu_number + '0';
> Which start to produce strange cpu numbers for cpus greater then 9. I
> doubt we want to go back to that ;)

Hi Gleb,

I see. Well I guess we could do something slightly more compatible by
printing along the lines:

printf("CPU:");
if (nr < 10)
    printf(" ");
snprintf()

Not sure if it is worth it, but it should be doable without reverting to
memcpy().

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Jes