From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47873 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OIzlb-0007Lj-TN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 03:50:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OIzla-0004Iw-TW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 03:50:35 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6512)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OIzla-0004Ig-L1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 03:50:34 -0400
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 10:50:30 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100531075030.GB22291@redhat.com>
References: <4BFFE03F.40606@redhat.com> <20100528154402.GB3604@redhat.com>
	<4C0365F8.2070703@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C0365F8.2070703@redhat.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [SeaBIOS] SMBIOS strings
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Cc: seabios@seabios.org, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:32:08AM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/28/10 17:44, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:24:47PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> I guess the Socket Designation in particular might have been done for a
> >> reason?
> >>
> > It was part of commit cf2affa6de. And was a result of moving to
> > snprintf() instead of direct string manipulation. Before that
> > string was created like that:
> >     memcpy((char *)start, "CPU  " "\0" "" "\0" "", 7);
> >        ((char *)start)[4] = cpu_number + '0';
> > Which start to produce strange cpu numbers for cpus greater then 9. I
> > doubt we want to go back to that ;)
> 
> Hi Gleb,
> 
> I see. Well I guess we could do something slightly more compatible by
> printing along the lines:
> 
> printf("CPU:");
> if (nr < 10)
>     printf(" ");
> snprintf()
> 
You mean snprintf() not printf?  AFAIR you can tell snprintf to pad with
spaces not zeroes.

> Not sure if it is worth it, but it should be doable without reverting to
> memcpy().
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
I don't care much as long as we will not have "CPU :". It looks like something
that can change after BIOS upgrade, so it is hard to believe Windows
will stop working because of this change.


--
			Gleb.