Igor Mozolevsky wrote: > On 14/01/2008, Daniel O'Connor <doconnor_at_gsoft.com.au> wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: >> >>> On 13/01/2008, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy_at_optushome.com.au> wrote: >>> >>>> IMHO, no. Virtually all similar FreeBSD information is exported >>>> via sysctl and this sort of information fits neatly into the >>>> existing MIB tree as either dev.cpu.N.features or hw.cpu.features >>>> >>> /dev/sndstat? >>> >> A single handy counter example to the many many that are sysctls :) >> >> >>> If it's in /dev you can do neat tricks like ioctl-ing queries (like >>> ioctl(/dev/cpuinfo, CINFOCTL_HAS_FEATURES, CINFO_SSE3|CINFO_SSSE3)) >>> instead of having *every* app parse the result of a sysctl; most of >>> the time you'd only want to check for specific feature , it's much >>> easier to do an ioctl that returns a boolean. >>> >> Except you can't do that from a shell script. >> (eg wrapper script to run optimised binaries) >> > > cat /dev/cpuinfo and parse away! > > > Igor > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" > > I have to agree with Daniel here. ioctl is probably inappropriate. sysctl is already intended for gathering or setting system information by both programs and/or people. cat'ing /dev/cpuinfo sounds reminiscent to Linux /proc. sysctl() could fill a cpu features bitmask for programs. sysctl dev.cpu.features (or something like that) could output those features in human readable format. Best Regards, Nathan LayReceived on Mon Jan 14 2008 - 03:40:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC