All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Roger Luethi <rl@hellgate.ch>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>,
	Andrew Morton OSDL <akpm@osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:18:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040914061800.GD9106@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040914055946.GA20929@k3.hellgate.ch>

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:25:56 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>> No. First of all, I think they can be offered. Until proven
>> otherwise, I'll assume that the !CONFIG_MMU case is buggy.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 07:59:46AM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> I agree with you that those specific fields should be offered for
> !CONFIG_MMU. However, if for some reason they cannot carry a value
> that fits the field description, they should not be offered at all. The
> ambiguity of having 0 mean either "0" or "this field is not available"
> is bad. Trying to read a specific field _can_ fail, and applications
> had better handle that case (it's still trivial compared to having to
> parse different /proc file layouts depending on the configuration).

Apart from doing something it's supposed to for !CONFIG_MMU and using
the internal kernel accounting I set up for the CONFIG_MMU=y case I'm
not very concerned about this. I have a vague notion there should
probably be some consistency with the /proc/ precedent but am not
particularly tied to it. We should probably ask Greg Ungerer (the
maintainer of the external MMU-less patches) about what he prefers
since it's likely we can't anticipate all of the !CONFIG_MMU concerns.


On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:25:56 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>> mean that fewer apps can run on !CONFIG_MMU boxes. It's
>> same problem as "All the world's a VAX". It's better that
>> the apps work; an author working on a Pentium 4 Xeon is
>> likely to write code that relies on the fields and might
>> not really understand what "no MMU" is all about.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 07:59:46AM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> The presumed wrong assumptions underlying broken tools of the future
> are not a good base for designing a new interface. My interest is in
> making it easy to write correct applications (or in fixing broken apps
> that won't work, say, on !CONFIG_MMU systems).

I don't really know what the approach to app compatibility used by
userspace for !CONFIG_MMU is; I'll refer you to Greg Ungerer as my
knowledge of the CONFIG_MMU usage models and/or whatever userspace
is used in tandem with it outside the VM's internals is rather scant.


-- wli

  reply	other threads:[~2004-09-14  6:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-09-08 18:40 [0/1][ANNOUNCE] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-08 18:41 ` [1/1][PATCH] " Roger Luethi
2004-09-09  0:35   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  0:43     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:15       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:17         ` [1/2] rediff nproc v2 vs. 2.6.9-rc1-mm4 William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:21           ` [2/2] handle CONFIG_MMU=n and use new vm stats for CONFIG_MMU=y William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:22             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:26             ` [3/2] round up text memory to the nearest page in fs/proc/task_mmu.c William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 18:43     ` [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 18:49       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:00         ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:02           ` [4/2] consolidate __task_mem() and __task_mem_cheap() William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:07             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 19:15               ` [5/2] fix nommu VSZ reporting in consolidated task_mem() William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:11         ` [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 19:23           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 21:19             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-10 15:30             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-11 22:25           ` Albert Cahalan
2004-09-12  4:58             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  5:59             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  6:18               ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-09-14  6:23                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  7:47                   ` Greg Ungerer
2004-09-14  8:27                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 11:53   ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 17:22     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 17:53       ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 20:01         ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 20:48           ` Chris Wright
2004-09-10 12:11             ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 20:55           ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 21:05             ` Chris Wright
2004-09-09 21:25             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-11 22:36               ` Albert Cahalan
2004-09-12  5:00                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  6:44                 ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  7:10                   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  7:55                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  8:01                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  9:27                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 15:37                           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 16:01                             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 16:37                               ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 17:15                                 ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 17:43                                   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 18:45                                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:07                                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 19:31                                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:36                                           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 19:50                                             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 11:44                                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:02                                           ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:20                                             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-15 20:33                                               ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:44                                               ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 18:37                                 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-14 18:55                                   ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:05                                     ` Chris Wright
2004-09-14 21:12                                       ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 20:44         ` Chris Wright
2004-09-16 21:43 ` nproc: So? Roger Luethi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040914061800.GD9106@holomorphy.com \
    --to=wli@holomorphy.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=albert@users.sf.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pj@sgi.com \
    --cc=rl@hellgate.ch \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.