From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: dave@gnu.org
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: new procfs lockinfo
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:06:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120221130601.eb15b1a4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1329737454.3058.3.camel@offbook>
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:30:54 +0100
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@gnu.org> wrote:
> 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.
Looks pretty good to me. A few things..
The above text doesn't really explain why we're adding the new procfs
file. What's wrong with the current format and why do we need a new
file? The basic rationale for changing the kernel is the most
important part of the whole patch, and it's missing!
Also, there's no description here of the new format. Ideally it will
be documented, perhaps in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt. If not
that then it should at least be *fully* described in the changelog,
along with examples. Because if we can't clearly see the proposed
format, how can we review the patch?
I'd also like to see some discussion of the namespace side of things.
How do namespaces play with locks? Mainly pid namespaces, I guess. Is
it possible to look at the output and determine which namespace a lock
belongs to? Does that even make sense? I don't know what our
long-term plan is for namespaces-versus-locks, but whatever it is, this
new interface should be designed to work well with it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-21 21:06 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 [this message]
2012-02-23 0:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-02-23 10:44 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2012-02-23 21:01 ` Andrew Morton
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=20120221130601.eb15b1a4.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