Re: [PATCH 2/3] chainlint.pl: fix incorrect CPU count on Linux SPARC

> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 3:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> > > > > > "CPUnn:" in /proc/cpuinfo instead of the usual "processor NN:".
> > > > > 
> > > > > not sure if worth a reroll, but the "usual" syntax is "processor  : NN"
> > > ...
> > > Inclusion of the word "usual" is such a minor flaw in the commit
> > > message that I doubt it warrants a reroll and the associated cost on
> > > reviewers and on the maintainer (Junio), especially since it does not
> > > negatively impact the intent conveyed by the commit messages nor the
> > > correctness of the actual patch.
> > > 
> > > As such, I'm not worried about it. Whether Junio reads this and wants
> > > to correct it in his tree is up to him, of course.
> > 
> > I think "usual" is not what was pointed out. The order between the
> > colon and NN is.
> 
> Yes, I understood that, but it is the word "usual" which makes the
> text "processor NN:" questionable since "processor NN:" is not
> typical. Without the word "usual", stating "processor NN:" is not
> especially problematic since the existing regex (which is being
> changed by this patch) _does_ match "processor NN:" (among others such
> as "processor:").
> 
> If we want to be more accurate, better wording might be:
> 
>     On SPARC systems running Linux, individual processors are denoted
>     with "CPUnn:" in /proc/cpuinfo, however, the regexp in ncores()
>     matches only "processor:" or "processor NN:". As a result, no
>     processors are found on SPARC. Address this shortcoming by
>     extending the regexp to also match lines with "CPUnn:".
> 
> but I doubt it is worth a reroll.