[PATCH] x86, x86_64: dual core proc-cpuinfo and sibling-map fix

- broken sibling_map setup in x86_64

- grouping all the core and HT related cpuinfo fields.
  We are reasonably sure that adding new cpuinfo fields after "siblings" field,
  will not cause any app failure. Thats because today's /proc/cpuinfo
  format is completely different on x86, x86_64 and we haven't heard of any
  x86 app breakage because of this issue. Grouping these fields will 
  result in more or less common format on all architectures (ia64, x86 and 
  x86_64) and will cause less confusion.

Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 7 deletions

diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c
index 0f1125b15b7..4f28eba7fb8 100644
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c
@@ -98,6 +98,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 		seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]);
 		seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n",
 				c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings);
+		seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]);
+		seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
 	}
 #endif
 	
@@ -130,13 +132,6 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 		     c->loops_per_jiffy/(500000/HZ),
 		     (c->loops_per_jiffy/(5000/HZ)) % 100);
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	/* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of
-	   breaking user space parsers. */
-	seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]);
-	seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
-#endif
-
 	return 0;
 }