From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: dave@gnu.org, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: new procfs lockinfo
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:01:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120223130106.8d976093.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1r4xmz8n0.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:38:27 -0800
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Davidlohr Bueso <dave@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@gnu.org>
> >
> > Based on our previous discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/10/462 we came to
> > agree on deprecating the current /proc/locks in favor of a more extensible interface.
> > The new /proc/lockinfo file exports similar information - except instead of maj:min the
> > device name is shown - and entries are formated like those in /proc/cpuinfo, allowing us
> > to add new entries without breaking userspace.
>
> You can't know the device name, attempt to say what you don't know seems
> very dangerous. It may be reasonable to simply give the deivce number
> and not split the device number into major/minor any more and I am
> concerned about reality.
I don't think we've ever been told any *reason* for switching from
major:minor to device-name. This is a problem.
And yes, major:minor reliably and uniquely identifies the device. I'm
not sure that the human-readable string which is largely a convenience
thing is as reliable as this.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-23 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-20 11:30 [PATCH] locks: new procfs lockinfo Davidlohr Bueso
2012-02-21 21:06 ` Andrew Morton
2012-02-23 0:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-02-23 10:44 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2012-02-23 21:01 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20120223130106.8d976093.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=dave@gnu.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).