Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:28:56 -0700 From: Arun Sharma <arun@sharmas.dhs.org> To: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF Message-ID: <20010520232856.A29045@sharmas.dhs.org> In-Reply-To: <20010520135655.A27231@sharmas.dhs.org>; from arun@sharmas.dhs.org on Sun, May 20, 2001 at 01:56:55PM -0700 References: <20010520124211.A10735@sharmas.dhs.org> <15112.12205.953218.814741@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20010520135655.A27231@sharmas.dhs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 01:56:55PM -0700, Arun Sharma wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 04:57:17PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > Arun Sharma writes: > > > Single UNIX spec doesn't include the above sysconf(3) argument, but > > > many UNIX variants do. What's the BSD way of doing this ? > > > > How about the hw.ncpu sysctl? > > Any objections to a patch implementing > sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF) in terms of hw.ncpu ? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=27489 -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010520232856.A29045>