* [bug#39762] [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211.
@ 2020-02-23 22:54 Vincent Legoll
2020-02-23 23:49 ` bug#39762: " Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via
2020-02-24 15:12 ` [bug#39762] " Todd Allen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Vincent Legoll @ 2020-02-23 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 39762, cpuid
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 964 bytes --]
Looks like it is still working in a guix VM running on AMD ryzen 3700X host.
But there is some output differences between previous version and this one.
in raw mode (cpuid -r), it outputs one more line per core:
0x20000000 0x00: eax=0x00000000 ebx=0x00000000 ecx=0x00000000 edx=0x00000000
which is probably OK, looks like the change:
Sun Feb 2 2020 Todd Allen <todd.allen@etallen.com>
* cpuid.c: Added leaf walking of the 0x20000000 (Intel Phi) range
[...]
But in normal mode, output changed a lot, some separators changed from ":"
to "=", a lot of reported values, new things... This will probably break
any simplistic parsing of that output, if there is anything doing that in
guix...
Having a cursory look at the changelog, it looks like this is getting a lot
more change since the beginning of this year, or something else.
Maybe Tood Allen can give us a hint...
Guixers, please advise how to proceed further.
Thanks--
Vincent Legoll
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gnu-cpuid-Update-to-20200211.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1151 bytes --]
From f15fe227325fe1744ecf58d6bfe513e6c97026fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 23:15:33 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211. * gnu/packages/linux.scm
(cpuid): Update to 20200211.
---
gnu/packages/linux.scm | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
index f0fd2fb5df..3fdc716545 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
@@ -5626,14 +5626,14 @@ available in the kernel Linux.")
(define-public cpuid
(package
(name "cpuid")
- (version "20200116")
+ (version "20200211")
(source (origin
(method url-fetch)
(uri (string-append "http://www.etallen.com/cpuid/cpuid-"
version ".src.tar.gz"))
(sha256
(base32
- "1gxi4iwy6j366l6bkj1yyxhrk1rxmwfp498gikfxn8xwhij9dn0a"))))
+ "06sjbqqp80l7nhsp6khglkzdp9qy4vhbvjxbfilznhsmrqiwlw55"))))
(build-system gnu-build-system)
(arguments
'(#:make-flags '("CC=gcc")
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#39762: [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211.
2020-02-23 22:54 [bug#39762] [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211 Vincent Legoll
@ 2020-02-23 23:49 ` Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via
2020-02-24 15:12 ` [bug#39762] " Todd Allen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via @ 2020-02-23 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 39762-done; +Cc: cpuid
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1631 bytes --]
Vincent,
Thanks for the update! I only recently (this year?) learnt of
this readable alternative to /proc/cpuinfo. Glad to hear it's
seeing more action.
Vincent Legoll 写道:
> But in normal mode, output changed a lot, some separators
> changed from ":"
> to "="
This was deliberate, for consistency:
Wed Feb 5 2020 Todd Allen <todd.allen@etallen.com>
* cpuid.c: Changed mp_synth fields to use '=' separator
instead of ':',
like every other value.
* cpuid.c: Changed processor serial number to use '='
separator instead
of ':', like every other value.
> a lot of reported values, new things... This will probably break
> any simplistic parsing of that output, if there is anything
> doing that in
> guix...
No:
~ λ guix refresh -l cpuid
No dependents other than itself: cpuid@20200116
It's possible there's something out there calling cpuid from
$PATH, but…
> Guixers, please advise how to proceed further.
…honestly, you're overthinking it. :-) There's a time to be
cautious but bumping cpuid is probably not it.
Guix is exceptionally good at installing previous versions of
packages for those who disagree. I've pushed your patch as
08fee94d0fd96ea2b40f9fec80dc3fa19e283019.
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211. *
> gnu/packages/linux.scm
> (cpuid): Update to 20200211.
Note that git expects an empty line (newline) between the commit
summary and the body of the message:
gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211.
* gnu/packages/linux.scm (cpuid): Update to 20200211.
Thanks again,
T G-R
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [bug#39762] [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211.
2020-02-23 22:54 [bug#39762] [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211 Vincent Legoll
2020-02-23 23:49 ` bug#39762: " Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via
@ 2020-02-24 15:12 ` Todd Allen
2020-02-24 19:14 ` Vincent Legoll
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Todd Allen @ 2020-02-24 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vincent Legoll; +Cc: 39762
Vincent,
Yes, often cpuid changes because of new features in the CPUID instruction, or
because of new CPUs determinable by the (synth) and (uarch synth) "leaves".
Sometimes it's because there was a feature I didn't know existed, like 0x2000000
leaves for Itanium. The ":" change to "=" in a couple cases was deliberate. It
had been inconsistent before.
Todd
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 11:54:38PM +0100, Vincent Legoll wrote:
> Looks like it is still working in a guix VM running on AMD ryzen 3700X host.
>
> But there is some output differences between previous version and this one.
>
> in raw mode (cpuid -r), it outputs one more line per core:
>
> 0x20000000 0x00: eax=0x00000000 ebx=0x00000000 ecx=0x00000000 edx=0x00000000
>
> which is probably OK, looks like the change:
> Sun Feb 2 2020 Todd Allen <todd.allen@etallen.com>
> * cpuid.c: Added leaf walking of the 0x20000000 (Intel Phi) range
> [...]
>
> But in normal mode, output changed a lot, some separators changed from ":"
> to "=", a lot of reported values, new things... This will probably break
> any simplistic parsing of that output, if there is anything doing that in
> guix...
>
> Having a cursory look at the changelog, it looks like this is getting a lot
> more change since the beginning of this year, or something else.
>
> Maybe Tood Allen can give us a hint...
>
> Guixers, please advise how to proceed further.
>
> Thanks--
> Vincent Legoll
> From f15fe227325fe1744ecf58d6bfe513e6c97026fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 23:15:33 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211. * gnu/packages/linux.scm
> (cpuid): Update to 20200211.
>
> ---
> gnu/packages/linux.scm | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> index f0fd2fb5df..3fdc716545 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> @@ -5626,14 +5626,14 @@ available in the kernel Linux.")
> (define-public cpuid
> (package
> (name "cpuid")
> - (version "20200116")
> + (version "20200211")
> (source (origin
> (method url-fetch)
> (uri (string-append "http://www.etallen.com/cpuid/cpuid-"
> version ".src.tar.gz"))
> (sha256
> (base32
> - "1gxi4iwy6j366l6bkj1yyxhrk1rxmwfp498gikfxn8xwhij9dn0a"))))
> + "06sjbqqp80l7nhsp6khglkzdp9qy4vhbvjxbfilznhsmrqiwlw55"))))
> (build-system gnu-build-system)
> (arguments
> '(#:make-flags '("CC=gcc")
> --
> 2.25.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [bug#39762] [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211.
2020-02-24 15:12 ` [bug#39762] " Todd Allen
@ 2020-02-24 19:14 ` Vincent Legoll
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Vincent Legoll @ 2020-02-24 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Todd Allen; +Cc: 39762
Hello Todd
thanks to chime in.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:12 PM Todd Allen <todd@etallen.com> wrote:
> Yes, often cpuid changes because of new features in the CPUID instruction, or
> because of new CPUs determinable by the (synth) and (uarch synth) "leaves".
> Sometimes it's because there was a feature I didn't know existed, like 0x2000000
> leaves for Itanium. The ":" change to "=" in a couple cases was deliberate. It
> had been inconsistent before.
Thanks also for the details, I was just not expecting that much
changes initially when
doing a refresh only a few weeks after the preceding one. That means you're doig
lots of work, which is great !
And to Tobias, yes, I was erring on the (too much) safe side, not
really being sure
what I'm doing... I'm still fairly new to guix, even if I lurked in
the vicinity for a long
time. Looks like I'm digging a bit deeper this time (bare-metal
install on an old laptop
in addition to the VM I did my previous attempts with...) And while
trying to be useful,
I don't want to disrupt or make others loose time on my early mistakes...
Thanks all for the help, I'll go package something else now...
--
Vincent Legoll
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-02-24 19:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-23 22:54 [bug#39762] [PATCH] gnu: cpuid: Update to 20200211 Vincent Legoll
2020-02-23 23:49 ` bug#39762: " Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via
2020-02-24 15:12 ` [bug#39762] " Todd Allen
2020-02-24 19:14 ` Vincent Legoll
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.