Re: readprofile: 0 total nan (fwd)

Hello All

I am not very sure that it is readprofile application problem. I downloaded
readprofile source and I compiled it. It worked fine on x86 machine running
2.4.7-10 kernel. I cross compiled it for xscale processor running 2.4.18 it
is not working.

Any Input?

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Andy Pfiffer wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 15:41, [e-mail] wrote:
> > I am running 2.4.18 kernel for ARM. I have one of the boot parameters
> > "profile=2". The size of the /proc/profile file is shown as 16MB. But when I
> > execute "readprofile" the output is ...  
> > 0 total                                         nan
> > 
> > If I cat the file it just give me a ".". Can anyone suggest what i am doing
> > wrong?
> 
> [ I swear I was just talking about this problem with someone else... ]
> 
> 1. /proc/profile is a binary file.  cat won't show you anything
> meaningful.
> 
> 2. the 0 output by readprofile is a problem with the automatic
> byte-order detection heuristic built into the code.  Try invoking
> readprofile with the "-n" option, and see if your problem goes away.
> 
> FYI: For those that might also run into this, the essence of the problem
> is this piece of code in readprofile.c (fragmented for clarity):
> 
> "optNative" is 0.
> "buf" is an unsigned int *.
> 
> 
> if (!optNative) {
>         int entries = len/sizeof(*buf);
>         int big = 0,small = 0,i;
>         unsigned *p;
> 
>         for (p = buf+1; p < buf+entries; p++)
>                 if (*p) {
>                         if (*p >= 1 << (sizeof(*buf)/2)) big++;
>                         else small++;
>                 }       
>         if (big > small) {
>                 fprintf(stderr,"Assuming reversed byte order. "
>                    "Use -n to force native byte order.\n");
>                 <snipped>
>                 .
>                 .
>                 .
>         }       
> }
> 
> Based on my read of the code, "big" will be incremented if *p >= 4,
> otherwise "small" will be incremented.  I can't see how this would ever
> detect the byte order...
> 
> Werner proposed this as a solution, but it could still fail to correctly
> detect the byteorder (although with much less frequency):
> 
> 
>