On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:53:01AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:37:41PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > static void *ct_seq_next(struct seq_file *s, void *v, loff_t *pos)
> > {
> > loff_t *spos = (loff_t *) v;
> > *pos = ++(*spos);
> > return spos;
> > }
> >
> > I mean 'pos' is sometimes increased in ct_seq_next(), and sometimes from
> > seq_file.c/seq_read(), too. Thus we cannot reliably do this:
> >
> > *pos = (*spos) + some_variable_offset;
>
> Of course we can. These guys can be sparse - note that ->start()
> takes a pointer, and for a good reason. ->start(m, p, pos) should
> get the first entry with offset >= *pos (or NULL if we are done) and
> set *pos accordingly.
>
> That m->index++ is "we are done with the partial, step just past it, so
> that ->start() will pick the first real entry after it the next time it's
> called".
>
> For dense case we don't need to update *pos in ->start() - either
> we already have one with offset == *pos (and no update is needed),
> or we are finished and should return NULL.
>
> However, we have every right to live with sparse offsets; prototype of
> ->start() had been done the way it's done exactly to allow that kind
> of use.
So sparse offsets are supported, with some special cares on ->start.
My case is to scan the address space in ranges. The "object" is the
start offset of a range:
__________________#######______________________#############__________
^start ^start
Now the solution can be:
- ->show shows the current range
- ->next seeks to next range
- ->start must *also* do the seek
The last requirement is made clear by you, a fact I refused to accept :)
My old concept was that a ->next should be called to move pages
forward after a new start.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
