From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Li, Aubrey" Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 1/3] /proc/pid/status: Add support for architecture specific output Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:42:01 +0800 Message-ID: <547c8966-8252-01b9-a807-5e28f91acf6b@linux.intel.com> References: <20190416063250.7514-1-aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> <20190416160143.8292ced993dc803aae7fa0da@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner , Andy Lutomirski Cc: Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Tim Chen , Dave Hansen , Arjan van de Ven , Alexey Dobriyan , aubrey.li@intel.com, Linux API , LKML List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 2019/4/18 21:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Andrew Morton wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:32:48 +0800 Aubrey Li wrote: >>> >>>> The architecture specific information of the running processes could >>>> be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture >>>> specific information externally. >>> >>> The implementation looks just fine to me. Have you had any feedback on >>> the overall desirability of adding this feature? >> >> I think I've been the most outspoken, and my not-all-that-strong >> opinion is that I don't really like it. /proc/PID/status is already a >> bit of a mess, and I don't think we really want it to be a mess that >> is different on different architectures. Hence my suggestion of >> /proc/PID/x86_status instead. Or we could do /proc/PID/arch_status, I > > arch_status looks like the right thing to do. Thanks Andy and Thomas, let me change the patch to use arch_status instead.