From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:56:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:56:50 -0400 Received: from aneto.able.es ([212.97.163.22]:3714 "EHLO aneto.able.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:56:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 18:02:10 +0200 From: "J.A. Magallon" To: Rik van Riel Cc: procps-list@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] procps 2.0.10 Message-ID: <20021008160210.GA3268@werewolf.able.es> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 17:05:34 +0200 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.4.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2002.10.08 Rik van Riel wrote: >On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, J.A. Magallon wrote: > >> >should always be 0.0% and it always is 0.0% here. >> > >> >I have no idea why it's displaying a wrong value on your >> >system, unless you somehow managed to run against a wrong >> >libproc.so (shouldn't happen). >> >> It looks like the 2 first screenshots show buggy data: > >Yup, that's the bug I fixed friday. Wait a moment, I fixed >it for five_cpu_numbers(), but probably not for the SMP CPU >code in top.c itself ... > >I'll fix this one after lunch. > Oops... I swear, I had not seen five_cpu_numbers when I sent you the patch about 0.1%... -- J.A. Magallon \ Software is like sex: werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free Mandrake Linux release 9.0 (dolphin) for i586 Linux 2.4.20-pre9-jam1 (gcc 3.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.0 3.2-1mdk))