Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Thursday 15 July 2010 01:56 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > on 15/07/2010 19:57 Oliver Fromme said the following: > > > I patched topo_probe() so it calls topo_probe_0x4() after > > > topo_probe_0xb() if cpu_cores is still 0. I think this > > > is a better fallback procedure. With this patch, cpu_cores > > > gets the value 4 which is the correct one, finally: > > [...] > > I think that your addition achieves this effect, perhaps just not > > as explicitly as I would preferred. > > > > Jung-uk, what do you think? > > Yes, you're right. Please try new patch: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/mp_machdep2.diff
Thank you! I will have access to that particular machine on Monday again, so testing the new patch will have to wait until Monday. But from looking at your patch it should have the same result as my simpler patch, so it should work fine. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "C++ is the only current language making COBOL look good." -- Bertrand Meyer _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
