Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:02:18 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.6] i386 /proc/irq/.../smp_affinity |
| |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:55:03PM -0400, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > - len = 0; > - for (k = 0; k < sizeof(cpumask_t)/sizeof(u16); ++k) { > - int j = sprintf(page, "%04hx", (u16)cpus_coerce(tmp)); > - len += j; > - page += j; > - cpus_shift_right(tmp, tmp, 16); > - } > - len += sprintf(page, "\n"); > - return len; > + return sprintf(page, "%08x\n", (u32)cpus_coerce(tmp)); > } > > static int irq_affinity_write_proc(struct file *file, const char __user *buffer,
This backs out the variable-length cpu bitmask handling.
I appear to be printing out 16-bit chunks of all this in what appears to be the reverse of the order expected. Why not just reverse the order of the 16-bit chunks?
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |