From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB9016B005A for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so1695306qwf.44 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:09:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1bc66b163326564dafb5a7dd8959fd56.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> References: <2375c9f90909160235m1f052df0qb001f8243ed9291e@mail.gmail.com> <1bc66b163326564dafb5a7dd8959fd56.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:09:17 +0800 Message-ID: <2375c9f90909162009w5cca547ah5df74972694eab09@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: kcore patches (was Re: 2.6.32 -mm merge plans) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico_Wang?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 2009/9/16 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki : > Am=EF=BF=BD+1rico_Wang =E3=81=95=E3=82=93=E3=81=AF=E6=9B=B8=E3=81=8D=E3= =81=BE=E3=81=97=E3=81=9F=EF=BC=9A >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Andrew Morton >> wrote: >>>#kcore-fix-proc-kcores-statst_size.patch: is it right? >>>kcore-fix-proc-kcores-statst_size.patch >> >> Hmm, I think KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki's patchset is a much better fix for this. >> Hiroyuki? >> > Hmm ? My set is not agaisnt "file size" of /proc/kcore. > > One problem of this patch is..this makes size of /proc/kcore as 0 bytes. > Then, objdump cannot read this. (it checks file size.) > readelf can read this. (it ignores file size.) Hmm, ok. > > I wonder what you mention is.... because we know precise kclist_xxx > after my series, we can calculate kcore's size in precise by > get_kcore_size(). Yeah, that is why I think your patchset for kcore can replace this. > > It seems /proc's inode->i_size is "static" and we cannot > provides return value of get_kcore_size() directly. It may need > some work and should depends on my kclist_xxx patch sets which are not > in merge candidates. If you can wait, I'll do some work for fixing this > problem. (but will not be able to merge directly against upstream.) > > But for now, we have to use some fixed value....and using above > patch for 2.6.31 is not very bad. Just saw your new patchset for this, I will review them. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org