Re: Patch for 2.2.10 (Quelle surprise!)

Dominik Kubla (dominik.kubla@uni-mainz.de)
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:34:50 +0200

On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 05:58:47PM +0100, Alex Buell wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Dominik Kubla wrote:
>
> > Well, while you're at it: it would be nice it uname(1) "-p" would
> > return the processor type as on Solaris et al. Of course this involves
> > glibc and sh-utils, not the kernel, but when implementing this feature
> > you could just keep an eye on what is needed for this to work
>
> 'uname -m' returns the processor type. On my machine that gives
> you 'i686'.

Wrong: uname -m returns the machine type, uname -p returns the actual
cpu type. Just check GNU uname --help...

> Do you mean uname -p would return 'Intel'? 'AMD' and so on?

No. We have it wrong: uname -m should always return the generic architecture
type (eg. i386, or alpha) while uname -p should return the actual processor
(eg. i386, i486, ev6 or K6-II).

> > Don't let yourself becoming discouraged by thos procfs proponents: a
> > lot of people are with you on this on!
>
> I'm still working on it, this is only the beginning. =)

Glad to hear that...

Dominik

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/