From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752794Ab0I2Lww (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:52:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39153 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751466Ab0I2Lwu (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:52:50 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA3288F.4030200@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:52:47 +0200 From: Jerome Marchand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Emelyanov CC: Matthew Wilcox , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: fix numbering in /proc/locks References: <4CA0B4A5.1090701@redhat.com> <4CA0B743.2050801@parallels.com> <4CA32626.8040700@redhat.com> <4CA32677.2020203@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: <4CA32677.2020203@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/29/2010 01:43 PM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> Good point. My implementation is definitely wrong. But I'm afraid that >> moving the increment in locks_next() won't help either. It will fail when >> a program do something more than just read the file sequentially (use >> of lseek() for instance). We need a better way to keep track of the >> current position in the list. > > The seq files core implementation knows about the lseek and > calls the seq_ops callbacks properly. > Yes, but if read a few lines and then lseek() back. I'm afraid it will call a few more locks_next() function and thus increase the counter again.