From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755290Ab2AXItb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:49:31 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:54318 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754577Ab2AXIta (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:49:30 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Pavel Emelyanov , Serge Hallyn , Kees Cook , Tejun Heo , Andrew Vagin , Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] fs, proc: Introduce /proc//task//children entry v8 References: <20120123142036.025893883@openvz.org> <20120123142436.181674896@openvz.org> <20120124110730.a3536647.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120124065338.GB29735@moon> <20120124160709.e05c51b5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120124072122.GD29735@moon> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:52:03 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20120124072122.GD29735@moon> (Cyrill Gorcunov's message of "Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:21:22 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=98.207.153.68;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19+6ktCgvvxDbQ4v00qxHq21q0xgVVTVRY= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.153.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in02.mta.xmission.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cyrill Gorcunov writes: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 04:07:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> > >> > Hmm. But userspace app will get eof, so frankly I don't see >> > a problem here. Or maybe I miss something? >> > >> >> Userspace need to take care of whether there may be"\n" or not even >> if read() returns EOF. >> As an interface, it's BUG to say "\n" will be there if you're lucky!" >> (*) I know script language can handle this but we shouldn't assume that. >> >> How about just remove "\n" at EOF ? I think it's unnecessary. >> > > Sure thing, it's not a problem to remove it completely. Foolish question. Is there any reason why this is a file instead of being the obvious directory full of symlinks? Eric