From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: Re: [patch 1/7] procfs: Add ability to plug in auxiliary fdinfo providers Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:18:10 +0400 Message-ID: <20120917181810.GH22360@moon> References: <20120912212906.407242774@openvz.org> <20120912213507.272670512@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Andrew Morton , Matthew Helsley , aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bfields@fieldses.org To: Al Viro , Pavel Emelyanov , James Bottomley Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120912213507.272670512@openvz.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 01:29:07AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > This patch brings ability to print out auxiliary data associated > with file in procfs interface /proc/pid/fdinfo/fd. > > In particular further patches make eventfd, evenpoll, signalfd > and fsnotify to print additional information complete enough > to restore these objects after checkpoint. > > To simplify the code we add show_fdinfo callback inside > struct file_operations (as Al and Pavel are proposing). > Hi, sorry for bothering but is there some opinions on this series? (I've found that epoll change log has not been well refreshed and says that this fdinfo feature is config-checkpoint-restore dependant, but in real this config entry was ripped off during conversation). So, at moment I somehow confused since it's a bit unclear where to move, either this series is more-less acceptible or not. I could bring back all config-checkpoint-restore dependency (since I still believe this feature better to be enabled not by default but iif user has asked fo it).